Natural Burial: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes and Practices Among Funeral Directors in the US

Abstract

The market for natural burial has increased for a variety of reasons including positions on environmental and sustainability issues, religious and spiritual considerations, and cost. While there is growing research on popular perceptions from potential consumers, very little is known about the industry actors, institutions, and structures that support natural burial practices. This study examines the knowledge, impressions, attitudes, and practices pertaining to natural burial among funeral directors through a multi-state, anonymous survey (n = 346). This study offers important contributions to the field of death studies, in that it helps to uncover funeral directors’ perspectives, contributes to an understanding of the social aspects of natural burial, and sets the stage for additional research on this topic. Further, the project examines natural burial through a sociological lens, with consideration of the implications for professionals.

Keywords

natural burial green burial funerals funeral directors death systems

Introduction

The options available for final disposition, along with the funeral industry and its practices, have evolved and changed throughout history, in keeping with advances in technology, historic events, and other societal influences. In early American society, the family of the deceased generally arranged short funerals, and burials took place without embalming, in simple wooden caskets (Earle, 2008). Thus, early burials were natural in the way we use the term today, allowing for internment of the body in a way that did not inhibit composition but rather allowed the body to be naturally recycled (Steward, 2018). During this time-period, death was part of the day-to-day reality of life and people were closely connected with dying and death processes.

The use of embalming, metal caskets, and other methods associated with what is generally considered the modern funeral and burial of today emerged out of the technological and scientific innovations of the Industrial Revolution, needs associated with the Civil War, the increased wealth in American society, and changing views toward death (Beard & Burger, 2017). Embalming was uncommon until the Civil War when deceased soldiers were preserved for transport from their places of death to their home communities. The public display of Abraham Lincoln’s embalmed body over a two-week train journey further popularized the practice (Harris, 2007). Metal caskets and burial vaults also appeared around this time, becoming recognized for their perceived ability to protect the deceased from the elements, create a more aesthetically pleasing death scene, protect against grave robbers, and help maintain the stability of cemetery grounds (Harris, 2007). These innovations sparked change in the funeral industry and, along with other societal and medical system changes, influenced American death culture. As the living were increasingly separated from dying and death, fear and denial took hold, and death and dying became taboo topics (Incorvaia, 2022).

Though these modern burial practices are now the norm, a variety of factors have returned attention to natural burials in recent years. Since the 1960s, increasing numbers of individuals and groups have advocated for change, as they view the ideas and practices associated with the modern death system to be environmentally damaging, overly professionalized, and too medicalized (MacMurray & Futrell, 2021). These advocates press for the use of more environmentally sensitive and humanistic approaches as alternatives to modern practices they believe to be problematic, limiting, and harmful (MacMurray & Futrell, 2021). Some use the term “natural burial” to more broadly refer to practices that do not inhibit body decomposition such as avoidance of embalming fluids, burial vaults, and non-biodegradable caskets. Others speak more specifically to “green burial” and “conservation burial,” both of which have intentional environmental components and implications. This is the conceptual approach utilized in this paper; “natural burial” is the guiding construct with an acknowledgement that the other terms overlap and are oftentimes used interchangeably.

According to Rumble et al. (2014), “a new ecological mentality is increasingly framing the management of the dead” (p. 243). Relatedly, an emerging era of death awareness and death-positive consciousness is resulting in a variety of initiatives to help people more openly talk about, prepare for, and view death as a natural part of life. This movement has also resulted in increased attention to natural burial options, as well as new forms of final disposition such as alkaline hydrolysis and human composting (Incorvavia, 2022). The founding of the Green Burial Council in 2005 further propelled these movements forward, establishing standards and a rating system for funeral homes, cemeteries, and products, as well as providing advocacy, education, and resources to professionals and the public.

Interestingly, while natural burial as a method of final disposition is not a new approach, it is now viewed by many an alternative method, one mainly used by environmentalists and some religious groups. Modern burial and cremation are the most common choices in today’s society, and our current death culture supports their use (National Funeral Directors Association, 2023). While natural burial is generally depicted as a return to simpler practices, it is not without debate and complexity (Stewart, 2018). For instance, Stewart’s definition is expansive, including other sub-types (e.g., green burial), but serves as a popular reference. Those in the funeral industry likely have a range of views on its use as they consider the business, financial, and practical implications for themselves and consumers of integrating it into their practices. Arnold et al. (2023) discuss such challenges with respect to alkaline hydrolysis as a newer innovation, writing that representing it “materially and discursively to the funeral professions and to the public eye in a way that positions the technologies as contributing to and drawing upon contemporary normative values is a vexing problem” (p. 15). Perhaps the same may be true of natural burial. Although it is an ancient practice, it is now viewed as strange, alternative, and not in keeping with societal norms. It goes against what many funeral directors have been taught and socialized into, what most Americans have experienced within their social networks, and how burial policies for most cemeteries have been established. But while modern funerals and burials continue to be the standard today, and cremation has become increasingly popular, natural burial practices have reemerged to share the landscape of options for final disposition.

The Literature Base on Natural Burial

A variety of guides aiming to assist people who want to plan natural burials, (e.g., Fornier, 2018; Herring, 2019), books containing personal narratives and perspectives, (e.g., Butz, 2009; Kelly, 2015) and books critiquing the funeral industry’s practices related to environmental and social responsibility exist (e.g. Doughty, 2017; Webster, 2016). While these sources provide a starting point for understanding the issues, challenges, and dynamics surrounding natural burial, very few empirical studies have been published.

Existing scholarly articles are mainly discussion-based, and they vary in terms of disciplinary focus. Some discuss natural burial from a land use perspective and as an option to address the space issues associated with the need to dispose of an increasing number of deceased due to population growth (Basmajian & Coutts, 2010; Coutts et al., 2018). Others connect various spiritual and religious dimensions with natural burial practices (Pike, 2023; Pryds, 2022; Stewart, 2012, 2014, 2018). Still others focus on natural burial from an environmental perspective, positing natural burial as a way to reduce our carbon footprint (Robinson, 2021; Stowe et al., 2001), calling attention to the pollution caused by cemeteries and crematoria (Franco, Georgin, Campo et al., 2022), and highlighting how such burial practices could be used to fund the conservation of threatened species (Holden & Madden, 2018). Kelly (2012), for example, argues that “American death care has positioned human death outside of the cycles of nature,” and encourages a “vision of human death that matters to and is part of nature” (p. 39). In short, the interest in natural burial is multifaceted.

Within the existing literature base few empirical studies have been conducted specifically on the topic of natural burial. One study gave voice to American older adult environmentalist perspectives, finding that their environmental activist identities carry through into their death care considerations, with green burials emerging as a theme (Stock & Dennis, 2023). One German-based study focused on cemetery spaces, contrasting consumer experiences of natural burial grounds with those of traditional cemetery spaces. The authors explored how the rules and regulations in place in various cemetery spaces may impact mourning practices and behaviors, and ultimately found that those who initially express positive views about natural burials frequently become disillusioned by their choice due to the lack of material symbols that serve to memorialize the deceased (Balonier et al., 2019). A recent study focused on stakeholder perceptions toward green burial in Zimbabwe, its implications for environmental sustainability, and the conflict between green burial and cultural beliefs (Muposhi et al., 2023). Recommendations for promoting and generating infrastructure around green burial were suggested.

Amidst this modest, multifaceted discussion, funeral director voices are relatively unheard. Though funeral directors are on the front lines of assisting people with decisions surrounding final disposition, no studies exist that examine their knowledge, impressions, attitudes, and practices pertaining to natural burial. Existing literature suggests that the funeral industry poses barriers to natural burial; is at fault for the resulting environmental, emotional, and social outcomes associated with the proliferation of modern burial practices; and needs to innovate and change to satisfy consumer demands and maintain profitability (Beard & Burger, 2017). The funeral industry has indeed integrated natural burial options into its offerings in recent years, though it is likely that a range of attitudes and levels of competence exist amidst funeral directors. Understanding funeral director perspectives is important since they may influence how natural burial is viewed within mainstream society.

Death System Hegemonies

Funeral directors are “core participants” in the American societal death system, which is comprised of a diverse array of people, places, times, objects, and symbols that characterize the strategies through which society’s members define, interpret, ritualize, and manage death (Kastenbaum, 1993; Kastenbaum & Moreman, 2018). In essence, a societal death system, inclusive of all its various components, facilitates peoples’ relationships with mortality (Kastenbaum, 1993, 2001). As part of this system, funeral directors guide people through the options available for final disposition of the deceased person’s body, including burial, cremation, and alternative methods. They present options, answer questions, and engage in planning with people who are often emotionally distraught and grieving. These discussions are often complex and include information about costs, legal processes, planning a service, and available products. Though a variety of factors influence families’ decisions regarding final disposition, funeral director knowledge, attitudes, impressions, and approaches regarding various options may influence whether and how they present them, and subsequently affect families’ decisions. Through their approaches in serving people in the pre-planning and after death planning phases, funeral directors are key players in shaping how people understand, manage, and make decisions surrounding death.

Funeral rites and rituals are viscerally important to any society and culture. The ascribed meaning, operational procedures, and institutional dynamics of any death system can say a lot about the people who use that system. Indeed, they serve as the “embodiment of sociocultural order but also as a culturally prescribed means to legitimize individuals’ actions and define their identity” (Tsuji, 2006, p. 391). In other words, the way society approaches, manages, and makes sense of death defines not only the culture writ large but the individual in it as well. Like any cultural system, approaches toward dealing with death vary over place and time.

That said, how flexible a social system is to change differs. For instance, in Japan, Tsuji found traditional mortuary rituals remain, despite “rapid social change” in other sectors of society (2006). Just like any social institution, death systems also carry cultural hegemonies, and the power dynamics that follow, which can build impenetrable scaffolding against change. Hegemony refers to a particular understanding of how power and control over beliefs and meaning in society are held together (i.e., ideological domination). Specifically, cultural hegemony refers to “cultural leadership,” or the coercion and consent of a populace through the intentional manipulation of common-sense assumptions made about social life as ‘natural’ or ‘the way things are’ (Gramsci, 1971). Maintaining the status quo through the normalization of perceived options, obligations, and beliefs is arguably an aspect of any social system. Indeed, this theoretical understanding can offer helpful insight into a variety of social market landscapes and belief-oriented collective actions, including the industry managing our death systems.

Some consideration has already been given to the hegemonic realities inherent in the funeral home industry. While this attention has largely focused on gender disparities in the profession (Donley, 2021; Pruitt, 2018), it provides a useful illustration of ‘hidden’ power dynamics perpetuated within the cultural mores and norms of the industry and regurgitated across wider society. Our study extends the same idea of hegemony to account for disparities in types of burial options offered to the public. As gatekeepers of information and options, funeral home professionals wield significant power in determining said practices. Ensuring individuals are given adequate, unbiased information about specific final disposition options for their loved ones or themselves, is vital and a standard mission within the industry. Beyond this democratic consideration, rising global populations have long pointed to serious concern for how we manage burial practices from an economic and environmental perspective.

As such, it is imperative to examine the realities of what professionals in the industry believe and support in their own practice and standards and how this may reveal what hegemonic dynamics that exist. By employing the concept of hegemony in this way, the detection of dissonance between industry practice and the market and cultural shifts playing out in society today can be disentangled and resolved, producing a death system more representative of the population and environment it attends. The data, analysis, and results from this study help facilitate this endeavor through an intentional discussion and implications for further work.

Data and Methods

Data for this study was collected via a multi-state online anonymous survey sent to licensed funeral directors throughout five states in the Midwest: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Participants were contacted through state-specific licensure open-access lists or via third party state professional associations that agreed to recruit. While some participants indicated a spread of funeral home businesses in other states, these were few, with a majority residing in the aforementioned five. A total of 346 individuals responded to the survey. Survey items included basic demographics, attitude toward and familiarity with natural burial options, past education and training with the practice, and perceived feasibility and/or challenges with said offerings. A battery of items that measured attitudes toward the environment were also included. Initial takeaways from the demographic breakdown present an industry that is predominantly white, male-dominated, slightly conservative on average, and Christian (see Table 1). The profile of participants is older, given the mean age (50) and number of years in the profession (24). Preliminary findings show most participants support natural burial options but are less confident that the funeral home industry and wider society emulate.

Table 1.

Demographic Statistics.

Item		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	129	58.9
Gender	Female	81	37
Race/ethnicity	White	199	90.5
	Black	6	2.7
	Other	15	6.8
Religion	Catholic	66	31.6
	Protestant	83	39.7
	Agnostic/Atheist	32	15.3
	Other	28	13.4
Region	Large city	42	19.4
	Suburban	66	30.4
	Small city	85	39.2
	Rural	24	11.1
State	Iowa	29	13.6
	Michigan	111	52.1
	Minnesota	12	5.6
	North Dakota	12	5.6
	Wisconsin	29	13.8
	Other	20	9.5
Personal support for natural burial		247	71.3
Perceived industry support for natural burial		171	56
Perceived societal support for natural burial		226	65.3
Age		Mean	50
Politics		Mean (10-point scale)	6.1
Years in profession		Mean	24.3

Further univariate and bivariate tests reveal the social and professional profile and extent of support for natural burial among funeral directors, perceived challenges, and understanding of industry standards and practices. Additionally, principal component analysis is administered on a battery of attitudinal items which affirm thematic clumping of factors. These composite scores provide deeper insight into the current disposition and positioning of funeral directors on the natural burial option.

Findings

Funeral Director Attitudes and Practices

Initial investigation into base demographic characteristics for participants that present positive attitudes toward natural burial practices supports common themes represented in the literature (Table 2). Younger, liberal-oriented, less or not religious, pro-environment leaning, and less seasoned funeral directors are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward natural burial practice. Further examination builds upon this profile, deepening insight into the more nuanced nature of these dispositions.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix of Attitude Toward Natural Burial and Demographic Items.

Item	Attitude toward Natural Burial
Age	−.258**
Gender (female)	NS
Political orientation (conservative)	−.280**
Religiosity	−.270**
Environmentalism	.355**
Years in industry	−.261**

*p < .01, **p < .005, ***p < .001.

The survey instrument included four batteries of items measuring self-identified attitudes and reported practices regarding natural burial in the respondent’s facility. These included: (1) familiarity and knowledge of natural burial; (2) training and formal education on natural burial; (3) actual participation and offering of natural burial; and (4) perceived limitations and challenges for administering natural burial. Table 3 presents the frequency and percentages for these survey items.

Table 3.

Natural Burial Items – Basic Percentages.

Item		Frequency	%
NB familiarity
How would you rate your own knowledge of natural burial as an option?	Very knowledgeable	93	35.5
	Somewhat knowledgeable	155	59.2
How would you rate your confidence in discussing natural burial as an option?	Very confident	101	38.9
	Somewhat confident	116	44.6
Are natural burials offered as an option by your funeral home?	Yes	137	59.8
	No	92	40.1
Does your website contain information about natural burial?	Yes	52	21.3
Does your website contain information about natural burial?	No	192	78.7
NB education/Training
Completed certificate in natural burial practice	Yes	17	7.7
	No, but interested	131	59.6
	No, not interested	60	27.3
Educational opportunities on natural burial practices are available	Yes	67	42.1
	No	92	57.9
Participated in training on natural burial practice	Yes	47	21.5
Participated in training on natural burial practice	No	172	78.5
State associations provide information on natural burial	Often	10	4.6
	Sometimes	81	37.5
	Rarely	90	41.7
	Never	35	16.2
State associations provide trainings, conference workshops, other education	Often	3	1.4
	Sometimes	7	33
	Rarely	93	43.9
	Never	46	21.7
NB participation
Frequency of participation in natural burials	Never	107	41.8
	Rarely	121	47.3
	Sometimes	20	5.8
How regularly are you asked about natural burials as an option	Never	46	18
	Rarely	153	59.8
	Sometimes	52	20.3
How is natural burial discussed (consistency and openness)	Consistently	17	6.6
	When asked	157	61.1
	Never	64	24.9
Likelihood that a family expressed interest will follow through	Not likely	122	47.8
	Somewhat likely	92	36.1
	Very likely	32	12.6
NB perceived challenges
Natural burials present more or less work for facility	More	57	22.7
	Neither	161	64.1
	Less	33	13.1
Compared to resources on other options, do you offer more or less on natural burial	More	8	3.4
	Same	40	16.9
	Less	189	79.8
Local barriers that present challenges to natural burial practice	Yes	166	84.3
	No	31	15.7
Distance to cemetery with natural burial option	Less than 15 miles	42	24.9
	16–25	34	20.1
	26–50	31	18.3
	51–100	27	16
	Over 100 miles	35	20.7

Basic percentages suggest funeral directors self-identify as supportive, knowledgeable, and offering natural burial options. However, funeral directors report not being proportionally trained or formally educated on the topic and methods. Additionally, funeral directors self-identify actual participation as rare or never happening and questions from clients as equally atypical. In fact, funeral directors disclose how little information about natural burials can be found on their facility website and that they only engage in conversations if prompted by the families themselves. Finally, funeral directors offer less resources on natural burial options (79%) and deem local barriers as a significant challenge (84%). This despite the reported reality that there appear reasonable options for accommodating cemeteries nearby (45% of respondents identified a natural burial cemetery 25 miles or closer). In short, funeral directors appear to present a bloated position of support on natural burial whereas levels of actual engagement with the public on natural burial options is uncommon.

A note on education and professional support reveals some added insight. Few (8%) are formally trained on the topic of natural burial, but a sizeable majority (60%) would be interested. Furthermore, funeral directors generally perceive state associations as rarely offering trainings and professional development opportunities on the topic. This could suggest if formal structures, like state associations, offered more opportunities to learn about natural burial practices, the actual participation and offerings of such options might increase. Further examination is required to determine what impact, if any, state associations might actually have.

Factor Analysis of Attitudes toward Industry Practice and Standards

Beyond basic univariate and bivariate descriptions, deeper tests for underlining themes reveal significant findings across the data. Principal component analysis was administered across the battery of attitudinal items which affirm the four underlying themes described before: familiarity with natural burial practices; education and training on natural burial practices; actual participation with natural burial practices; and foreseen challenges toward supporting natural burial practices (see Table 4). The resulting factor scores provide a helpful mechanism to capture nuanced correlations in deeper analysis. Table 5 presents the correlation matrix for all four factor scores. It is important to note that most factor scores correlate with each other. This suggests that, if you are familiar with natural burial practices, you are likely to engage in education on the topic, execute participation in practice, and find natural burial practices a feasible option.

Table 4.

Natural Burial Items - Factor Scores.

Item	Correlation
NB familiarity
How would you rate your own knowledge of natural burial as an option?	.677
How would you rate your confidence in discussing natural burial as an option?	.759
Are natural burials offered as an option by your funeral home?	.660
Does your website contain information about natural burial?	.580
NB education/Training
Completed certificate in natural burial practice	.664
Educational opportunities on natural burial practices are available	.571
Participated in training on natural burial practice	.846
NB participation
Frequency of participation in natural burials	.836
How regularly are you asked about natural burials as an option	.796
How is natural burial discussed (consistency and openness)	.622
Likelihood that a family expressed interest will follow through	.723
NB perceived challenges
Local barriers that present challenges to natural burial practice	.618
How many other funeral home facilities exist in region	.534
Distance to cemetery with natural burial option	.739

Table 5.

Correlation Matrix With Natural Burial Factor Scores.

	NB Familiarity	NB Education	NB Participation	NB Challenges
NB familiarity	1	.684**	.582**	−.370**
NB education	.684**	1	.334**	−.168
NB participation	.582**	.334**	1	−.385**
NB challenges	−.370**	−.168	−.385**	1

*p < .01, **p < .005, ***p < .001.

Further insight into the industry structures, standards, and normative cultures around natural burial practice is also telling. Participants were asked a series of questions about perceived work and resource expenditures required for natural burial practices as compared to conventional methods. Table 6 presents a correlation matrix of these items with the four natural burial factor scores. In short, participants who already participate in natural burial practices are not likely to see it as more work. Likewise, those who see natural burial practice as more work are more likely to see the offerings as challenging. Furthermore, the level of resources designated for natural burial options is correlated with higher familiarity, education, participation and fewer perceived challenges.

Table 6.

Correlation Matrix of NB Factors and Attitudes Toward Natural Burial Industry Practice.

Item	NB Familiarity	NB Education	NB Participation	NB Challenges
Attitude toward natural burial in funeral home industry as a whole	.275**	.186*	.332**
Compared to conventional burials do natural burials present more work?			−.162*	.378**
Compared to resources on other burial options, do you offer more, the same, less on natural burial	.173*	.211**	.157*	−.281**
Person who makes administrative decisions		.176*
State association provide information on natural burial practices	.495**	.170*	.210**
State association provide trainings, conference workshops, etc.	.513**	.233**	.238**

*p < .01, **p < .005, ***p < .001.

Participants were also asked what role their state professional association serves in providing information, education/training and other professional development opportunities on natural burial practices. For those who viewed state associations as providing support (e.g., information on natural burial, training and educational opportunities), there is greater likelihood of familiarity, education, and participation with natural burial practices. Perceived challenges to natural burial practices were not significantly related to attitudes toward state associations. In other words, funeral directors who saw state associations as a positive resource were more likely to engage in natural burial practices.

Discussion

Recent reports suggest growing interest in alternative burial methods as compared with modern approaches such as embalming, casket and cremation. In a 2018 survey, the National Funeral Directors Association found 54% of Americans would consider green burial and 72% of cemeteries reported an increase in demand (Vatomsky, 2018). The way people approach final disposition is clearly changing. Impact on the environment, cost of the current death system, and the realities of a growing global population may all contribute to the way people make decisions around death. As presented in this paper, the fact that cultural landscapes fluctuate over time and place is a well-documented expectation not unique to our attitudes and dispositions on death and dying. Whether the institutions that maintain support and services related to death practice also adapt to a changing landscape is critical to ensuring transparent and comprehensive social needs are being met.

To better understand the interaction between changing patterns in the general population and the death industry system, this study centered on the attitude and perceived role of funeral directors as an integral nexus point. Indeed, funeral directors serve as gatekeepers for many families making decisions for loved ones during particularly vulnerable moments in life. Assessing what type of options are offered, discussed, and supported – especially during a time when many American’s preferences are changing – is paramount.

To do this, an online survey instrument was disseminated across multiple midwestern states, inviting licensed funeral directors to share their positions on natural burial practices, options in their own facility, and general attitudes about the state of the industry. Though such self-reported survey data generally carry limitations, the anonymous nature of the survey offered some protection against issues of response bias. That said, future research might use additional methodologies to gain further insight into these topics, and research including a more nationally representative sample and others key players involved in the American death system may offer a more comprehensive picture.

Initially, most funeral directors (71.3%) in this study present positive dispositions around natural burial as an option for individuals and their families. However, the reality of an informed service offered and supportive of natural burial is much more complicated. Findings from the survey reveal two main conclusions. First, results depict an unbalanced concentration of support for natural burial practices. Funeral directors that are younger, liberal leaning, not particularly religious, environmentally minded, and newer to the industry were more likely to be supportive of natural burial practices. These demographics parallel the characteristics among the general population that care about environmental issues more broadly. The environmental aspect of natural burial options is important, signified by the results of this study but require additional research for deeper insight. For instance, just how the environmental dispositions relate, inform, or effect attitudes and practice regarding natural burial options among funeral directors could be examined even more.

Second, despite general individual support for natural burial practice, there is less perceived confidence among funeral directors that the industry and society writ large are just as accepting. Therein lie the first of two paradoxes. On the one hand, funeral directors depict a lack of interest in natural burial practice from client families, but rarely present or engage in such options with families to begin with. Additionally, funeral directors report designating fewer resources to this option and complain of local barriers, such as a lack of participating cemeteries, as a key hindrance when at the same time many report reasonable options for natural burial locations within a 25-mile radius. Indeed, funeral directors who already report participating in natural burial practice, do not see it as more work at all. The pause around local barriers and cemetery options is an important aspect that requires additional research to dig even deeper into the potential attitudes and understandings from funeral directors. For instance, further research might uncover the need for advocacy related to cemetery practices and other zoning issues.

A potential reason for the dissonance uncovered in these findings could be hegemonic. As detailed in this paper, a death system is not unlike any cultural system; each include particular power dynamics and ideological traditions. The modernist approach toward death and dying has long been established and maintained, making it difficult to imagine and adopt new approaches so quickly. But if perceptions are challenged with rational intent and justification, this might change. Indeed, while most funeral directors do not have formal training on the topic, a majority (60%) would be interested in the opportunity. Furthermore, state associations are perceived as currently underutilized sources for maintaining such training and development. This finding is critical for two reasons as the hegemonic qualities of the funeral home industry are considered. First, this finding presents evidence that in addition to other hidden power dynamic disparities already noted in the funeral home industry (Donley, 2021; Pruit, 2018) variability also exists regarding support and engagement with new options such as natural burial. However, this can change. The second conclusion highlights the shifts in attitude and practice within the industry as stirring, which, despite the already acknowledged inflexible nature of many death systems (Tsuji, 2006), illustrates the potential malleability of this social system.

The takeaway of this study is two-fold. First, the results suggest a disconnect between a growing national preference for natural burial options and an industry that purportedly supports them. Within the industry a series of paradoxes emerge, presenting a somewhat bloated support for natural burial that quickly falls flat with actual execution. Second, there are signs for optimism. A stronger role in education and training on natural burial from state associations could increase awareness, confidence, practice, and engagement. This study has already identified this correlation. These results offer a promising outlook that with increased exposure and information to natural burial options, the realities and challenges of implementation are seen as surmountable, which counters what some previous work has suggested (Balonier et al., 2019). Furthermore, state associations could serve a vital role to buttress a growing and informed profession that welcomes natural burial practices as an option. This too is encouraging, considering the uphill battle previous work has delivered on the barriers the funeral industry poses to natural burial (Beard & Burger, 2017).

Additionally, and more gradually, this will likely curve naturally with generational changes. Millennial and Gen Z cohorts are more environmentally conscious than other groups (Funk, 2021) and, as depicted in this study, younger funeral directors follow similar patterns. The question is whether waiting for generational changes is fast enough to meet actual market demand, rising environmental and population challenges, and cultural shifts around death and dying.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Amy Z. Ticho

Author Biographies

Amy Zlimen Ticho is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point. Her research focuses on family dynamics at end of life, recovery from parental suicide, and hospice in rural areas.

David Barry is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point. His research explores issues related to ethno-religious nationalism, global identity, and the sanctification of nature.

References

Arnold

Kohn

Nansen

Allison

(2023). Representing alkaline hydrolysis: A material-semiotic analysis of an alternative to burial and cremation. Mortality.

Balonier

Parsons

Patterson

(2019). The unnaturalness of natural burials: Dispossessing the dispossessed. Mortality, 24(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2019.1585786

Basmajian

Coutts

(2010). Planning for the disposal of the dead. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003791913

Beard

V. R.

Burger

W. C.

(2017). Change and innovation in the funeral industry: A typology of motivations. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 75(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222815612605

Butz

(2009). Going out green: One man’s adventure planning his own burial. Spirituality & Health Books.

Coutts

Basmajian

Sehee

Kelty

Williams

(2018). Natural burial as a land conservation tool in the US. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.022

Donley

(2021). “It’s my calling”: Gendered pathways to funeral work. Journal of Death and Dying, 83(2), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222819847839

Doughty

(2017). From here to eternity: Traveling the world to find the good death. W.W> Norton & Company, Inc.

Earle

(2008). Customs and fashions in old New England. Retrieved from: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24159.

10.

Fornier

(2018). Green burial guidebook: Everything you need to plan an affordable, environmentally friendly burial. New World Library.

11.

Franco

Georgin

Villarreal Campo

L. A.

Mayoral

Goenaga

Fruto

Neckel

Oliveira

Ramos

(2022). The environmental pollution caused by cemeteries and cremations: A review. Chemosphere, 307(Pt 4), 136025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136025

12.

Funk

(2021). Key findings: How Americans’ attitudes about climate change differ by generation, party and other factors. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/26/key-findings-how-americans-attitudes-about-climate-change-differ-by-generation-party-and-other-factors/

13.

Gramsci

(1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers Co.

14.

Harris

(2007). Grave matters. New York, NY: Scribner.

15.

Herring

(2019). Reimagining death: Stories and practical wisdom for home funerals and green burials. North Atlantic Books.

16.

Holden

M. H.

Madden

E. M.

(2018). Conservation from the grave: Human burials to fund the conservation of threatened species. Conservation Letters, 11(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12421

17.

Incorvaia

A. D.

(2022). Death positivity in America: The movement—its history and literature. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 89(3), 1233–1252. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228221085176

18.

Kastenbaum

(1993). Reconstructing death in postmodern society. OMEGA, 27(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.2190/p4xj-egne-e157-g3qn

19.

Kastenbaum

(2001). Death, society and human experience. Allyn & Bacon.

20.

Kastenbaum

Moreman

C. M.

(2018). Death, society and human experience (12th ed.). Routledge.

21.

Kelly

(2012). Dead bodies that matter: Toward a new ecology of human death in American culture. Journal of American Culture, 35(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-734x.2011.00796.x

22.

Kelly

(2015). Greening death: Reclaiming burial practices and restoring our tie to the earth. Rowman & Littlefield.

23.

MacMurray

Futrell

(2021). Ecological death reform and death system change. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 83(4), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222819869485

24.

Muposhi

Chokera

Mudzimba

(2023). Green burial conundrum: Constructing the intersection between stakeholder perceptions and sustainable land use in a multi-cultural society. Mortality.

25.

National Funeral Directors Association . (2023). US cremation rate expected to top 80% by 2045. https://nfda.org/news/media-center/nfda-news-releases/id/7717/us-cremation-rate-expected-to-top-80-by-2045

26.

Pike

S. M.

(2023). There’s divinity in everything here’: Ritualizing ecological practice at pagan nature sanctuaries. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 17(3), 376–403. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.24316

27.

Pruitt

A. S.

(2018). Redoing gender: How women in the funeral industry use essentialism for equality. Gender, Work and Organization, 25(2), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12203

28.

Pryds

(2022). Sister death and the care of all creation: A Franciscan argument for green burial. Religions, 13(9), 816. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090816

29.

Robinson

(2021). Dying to go green: The introduction of resomation in the United Kingdom. Religions, 12(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020097

30.

Rumble

Troyer

Walter

Woodthorpe

(2014). Disposal or dispersal? Environmentalism and final treatment of the British dead. Mortality, 19(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2014.920315

31.

Stewart

B. M.

(2012). Committed to the earth: Ecotheological dimensions of Christian burial practices. Liturgy, 27(2), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0458063x.2012.638794

32.

Stewart

B. M.

(2014). The place of Earth in Lutheran funeral rites: Mapping the current terrain. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 53(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12101

33.

Stewart

B. M.

(2018). Fault lines in the graveyard: The contested nature of green burial. VDE dialog. Zeitschrift für VDE-Mitglieder, 57(4), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/dial.12438

34.

Stock

P. V.

Dennis

M. K.

(2023). Up in smoke or down with worms? Older adult environmentalist’s discourse on disposal, dispersal, and (green) burial. Mortality, 28(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2021.1878121

35.

Stowe

J. P.

Schmidt

E. V.

Green

(2001). Toxic burials: The final insult. Conservation Biology, 15(6), 1817–1819. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00348.x

36.

Tsuji

(2006). Mortuary rituals in Japan: The hegemony of tradition and the motivations of individuals. Ethos, 34(3), 391–431. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.2006.34.3.391

37.

Vatomsky

(2018). Thinking about having a ‘green’ funeral? Here’s what to know. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/smarter-living/green-funeral-burial-environment.html

38.

Webster

(2016). Changing landscapes: Exploring the growth of ethical, compassionate, and environmentally sustainable green funeral service. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.