Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
3, August 2007
ABSTRACT This study explores the case of natural burial and the motives for the adoption of trees as
memorial objects to replace traditional grave markers. It specifically explores a single woodland burial
ground and two distinct communities who are connected to the site; bereaved people and pre-purchase
holders. Natural burial has developed in response to changing ideals, values, and shifts in attitude
towards death in contemporary Britain. Examination of memorial tree selection and the emotions
expressed about the chosen plant suggests that the adoption of trees as grave markers is the result of the
symbolic and sensory qualities that they offer as objects of memory and their perceived natural qualities
and environmental benefit. This study demonstrates the value placed on trees for their perceived
permanence and presence and the way in which they may embody aspects of personal and cultural
memory, thereby facilitating and sustaining relationships beyond the grave. It also explores the
motivations for choosing natural burial and the significance of the memorial tree and its connection with
the grave.
Introduction
The natural burial movement represents a significant change in the provision,
design, and management of burial space. The first natural burial ground opened in
1993 as an extension to an established Victorian cemetery in Carlisle, Cumbria
(Clayden, 2003, 2004). The concept for creating a different type of burial space
where headstones would not be permitted, but instead each grave would be
marked by the planting of a tree, was established by Ken West, Head of Carlisle
Bereavement Services. This new form of burial was, in part, seen as a solution to
problems associated with the management of cemeteries where maintaining access
to graves, many of which were no longer visited, was a costly exercise. It was also
an opportunity to attach a new purpose to burial, one of creating habitat without
the additional liability of ensuring that memorial headstones were not a danger to
people working in and visiting the cemetery. The inspiration to provide an
ISSN 1357-6275 (print) ISSN 1469-9885 (online) Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13576270701430700
Woodland burial 241
experiences of bereaved people who may maintain a contact with the site but also
how they may act upon visitors who may be unfamiliar with their original purpose.
Although there is a substantial literature on theories of grief and the therapeutic
qualities of nature and woodland (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982; Ulrich, 1981), little
attention has been given to the psychological benefits of relationships that exist
between living memorials and bereaved people. Previous grave studies have
highlighted the often complex, very personal, relationships that exist following the
death of a loved one. The desire for memorialization is not just a search for
‘‘permanency’’ but also relates to the need of bereaved people to have a ‘‘focus,’’
to find an object through which they can channel feelings of grief and mourning.
The concept of ‘‘continuing bonds’’ is a cultural concept that has been at the
forefront of theories of grief since it was highlighted by Klass et al. (1996). ‘‘For all
communities (studied) deceased kin are considered members of the existing
family. The ideal of fulfilment of reciprocal obligations between parent and child
and wife and husband continues throughout life and beyond the grave’’ (Francis
et al., 2000, p. 37).
This relationship has become an increasingly overt aspect of the bereavement
process, offering observable psychological benefits. The continuing link between
the survivor and the deceased is often manifested and sustained through material
objects (Klass, Silverman, & Nickman, 1996). These objects provide multi-faceted
benefits; they fulfil the need for a ‘‘focus,’’ enable the ‘‘anchoring’’ (Bradbury,
1999, 2001) of the deceased and provide a tangible object which the bereaved can
visit and interact with. Francis et al.’s study into grave behaviour (2000, 2001,
2005) observed the complexity of relationships that exist between bereaved and
deceased at the graveside. Their study discovered a complex dialogue between
bereaved people and the deceased that included tending the grave, headstone, and
adjacent grounds, and the participation in personal rituals that included saying
prayers, placing flowers, and depositing grave goods. Francis et al. (2000) suggest
that tending the grave ‘‘appears to serve as a proxy act of physical contact with the
deceased’’ (2000, p. 43) and that the choice of headstone is a fundamental
intervention by the living to reconstruct the identity of the deceased. Their research
at the City of London cemetery also illustrates how plant material taken from the
home and planted on the grave may be used to facilitate memories of place. They
cite the example of two elderly women who planted thrift taken from their father’s
window box as a reminder of their old neighbourhood (2005, p. 101).
This perceived duty to the deceased is most clearly demonstrated by the culture
of leaving cut flowers on the grave. Studies suggest that there is a general
perception that by not leaving cut flowers the relative is somehow neglecting the
deceased and that leaving floral tributes is a duty which relatives feel they must
fulfil. In a number of European countries, the use of living plants is considered to
be cheating or a second-class option (Goody & Poppi, 1994) and that visiting and
leaving plant materials is a way of maintaining ‘‘networks of kin’’:
In the case of Italian cemeteries, flowers act as the ongoing witness of the active
relationship between the living and the dead. The very fact that their freshness
Woodland burial 247
betrays the frequency of visits compels the cult to be kept once it has started
(Goody & Poppi, 1994, p. 149).
The potential relationships that exist between a memorial plant and a person
at the graveside have as yet received little critical attention. This study suggests
that, where there is a choice, a tree is often selected for very personal reasons
exclusive to the deceased and that selecting a tree can be an opportunity to
reconstruct the deceased’s identity, offering a tangible ‘‘focus’’ with which to
continue relationships.
Research method
This study focused on the users of a single natural burial ground. Site selection was
therefore extremely important in providing the best possible opportunity to
investigate user attitudes towards natural burial and selection of the memorial
plant. The site was chosen on the basis that it was well established with a significant
number of burials. This would potentially give access to a wide range of
participants with varying lengths of contact with the site. It was also important
that the memorial plant was selected by the deceased or next of kin and that it was
planted on the grave. This would enable us to explore individual rather than
institutional motivations for plant selection and the significance of its relationship
with the grave. Context was also considered to be important. The majority of
natural burial grounds have been developed as extensions to established cemeteries.
For the purpose of this study we wished to isolate the user from the familiar
iconography of the cemetery including buildings, boundary walls, and gravestones
(see Rugg, 2000) and areas where other family members may be buried.
The selected burial ground, which fulfilled each of these criteria, was opened in
1996 and is owned and managed by a private funeral directors. It is located on the
outskirts of a small village, surrounded by open fields, and is approximately 2.5
hectares. There have been in excess of 350 burials and it is also possible to pre-
purchase a grave. The burial ground has no denominational affiliation and permits
the burial of cremated remains. Plant selection is entirely at the discretion of the
client. Additional memorials are permitted at the site, although restrictions are in
place to prevent excessive ad hoc memorialization. Typically a small stone or
wooden plaque, on which is recorded the name of the deceased and dates of birth
and death, is placed flat on the grave.
Two questionnaires were collated; one for the pre-purchase group and one for
bereaved people. The pre-purchase response group provided a unique opportunity
to investigate immediate motivations for selecting natural burial. This group was
anticipated to have strong views on the subject due to their proactive approach to
funeral arrangement. It also allowed investigation of more sensitive issues which
might be upsetting for a bereaved relative, for example, how long should the
memorial tree be retained.
The bereaved group offered the opportunity to examine the importance and
significance of plant selection and the relationships that existed between the
248 A. Clayden & K. Dixon
person, the plant, and the burial ground following the death of their loved one.
This group would provide a direct user perspective of natural burial. The response
rate for pre-purchase and bereaved relatives was 50% (n ¼ 19) and 40% (n ¼ 90),
respectively.
The results and discussion have been organized into three separate areas of
inquiry. The first area explores the motives for choosing natural burial. Questions
were directed at the pre-purchase participants only because we could not be sure
that bereaved participants either chose or supported natural burial as a disposal
option. Bereaved participants did however provide unsolicited qualitative
feedback on their or their friend or relatives motivations for choosing natural
burial. The second area looks at which trees were selected and what informed this
decision. These questions were directed at bereaved and pre-purchase partici-
pants. The third and final area of study examined what significance was attached
to the memorial tree and its location on the grave. These questions were directed
at the bereaved participants who could give a user perspective of experiencing the
burial ground. The questionnaire uses a diverse questioning technique, collating
general demographic and quantitative data, Likert scale semi-qualitative
questioning, and opportunities for free form text. The quantitative data is
presented in the form of tables and summaries. The free form text is reported in
relation to the pre-coding of themes that were set out within the questionnaire.
TABLE 1. Pre-purchase users responses to motivational statements for selecting natural burial
(n ¼ 19)
% of neither
% of agree agree or % of
Statements responses disagree disagree
what extent they would agree or disagree that ‘‘woodland burial is in keeping with
their philosophical/spiritual beliefs’’ there is an increase in the proportion who do
‘‘not agree’’ with this statement. There has been an assumption that natural burial
is partly driven by a secular demand for burial provision away from the established
church in un-consecrated land. The following comments appear to support this
position:
The survey identified that 60% of pre-purchase respondents and 58% of bereaved
respondents recorded their religion as Christian. Even so, burial within
250 A. Clayden & K. Dixon
un-consecrated land did not appear to compromise their beliefs. One respondent
did however comment that the desire to secure a burial plot was the principal
motivation in choosing natural burial and that natural burial was not the preferred
disposal option:
The results also suggest that one of the motivations for choosing a woodland
burial is a perception that it is more attractive than ‘‘traditional cemeteries’’ and
more ‘‘therapeutic’’ for bereaved people. Again, one might expect these results
from participants who have selected this disposal option. Comments from
bereaved respondents who may not have chosen natural burial but who have
experience of the burial ground also support this view. Some respondents were
choosing natural burial because of a perceived neglect of the cemetery and because
they did not consider it an appropriate environment for grieving:
I think people find cemeteries increasingly depressing and uncared for places,
and find woodland burial sites more in tune with conserving the environment
(B/13) (B ¼ bereaved relatives etc.).
For all respondents, the choice of a living memorial to mark their grave was a
significant motivation for choosing natural burial. It was therefore surprising that
there was a reduction in the percentage of respondents who did not agree that they
were ‘‘comfortable with becoming part of a collective memorial in which their own
identity may become anonymous’’; given that the memorial tree could be lost
through natural competition or disease. It would appear that the tree is perceived
to be durable even though relatively short-lived species, like birch, are popular
choices.
The cost of traditional burial was considered to be a significant motivation in
promoting a more affordable natural burial alternative (see Wienrich & Speyer,
2003). The study site provides information to potential clients on the cost of a
grave and how this compares to other local disposal options. The study site is
approximately one-third cheaper than any other local provider. Despite these
savings, this statement received the smallest percentage of agree responses (35%).
It may be that they are unaware of the range of burial costs or that it was not
considered to be a significant issue in informing their choice. In recent years, the
Woodland burial 251
largest growth in demand for natural burial has been at some of the larger private
sites which tend to offer a wider range of services and charge higher fees.
selected by the bereaved participants was much larger than for the pre-purchase
participants (29 and 11, respectively). This may partly be accounted for by the
difference in numbers of respondents (bereaved ¼ 90; pre-purchase ¼ 19) but it
may also indicate that tree selection is guided by different criteria when the choice
is made by bereaved people rather than the pre-purchaser. The selection of native
species is greater for the pre-purchase survey group. This may indicate a greater
priority to select trees that are appropriate in establishing native woodland. It may
also suggest that, where the tree is selected by bereaved relatives, other moti-
vations become more influential. Figure 2 shows the relationship between tree
type and gender of the deceased.6 This would appear to suggest that gender may
have some influence on tree selection. The most popular choice of tree for men is
oak, whereas for women it is silver birch.
In order to try and clarify the motives which inform the selection of the
memorial tree, the respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a
series of statements about the tree and its attributes, using a Likert scale.
Statements about the chosen tree included its physical attribute, its appropriate-
ness to the burial site/context, and its connection to the deceased or pre-purchase
holder. Results from the bereaved group show an overwhelming agreement that
the choice of tree species is important, with 65% of respondents strongly
disagreeing with the statement ‘‘Tree type is unimportant.’’ The type of tree was
FIGURE 2. Relationship between gender of the deceased and selection of the memorial tree.
Woodland burial 253
less important for the pre-purchase group, with only 36% strongly disagreeing to
this statement. Generally, the results demonstrate the complexity of motivations
driving the selection of tree type. A number of factors appear to influence tree
selection and their significance varies across respondents and response groups.
Across response groups, the attractiveness of the tree, its appropriateness to the
site and context, and its size and longevity were the most significant factors
informing choice. For the bereaved relative or friend, the tree’s longevity was the
most important factor. Longevity was less important for the pre-purchase group
with aesthetic quality and/or personal preference having a greater priority (see
Table 2). These results highlight the general perception by the burial ground user
of a particular tree as ‘‘long-living’’ regardless of species. For example, the
‘‘longevity’’ of a species is often a significant motivation for choice but the
observable preference for the relatively short-lived species like birch may
demonstrate a misconception about this tree.
The importance attached to potential longevity and attractiveness demonstrates
the need to mark the grave with an object worthy of honouring the memory of the
deceased. Permanence is a recurring theme and throughout the study the ability of
trees to endure and represent the passage of time were significant factors for
selecting natural burial. The preference for deciduous, native species may be
directly related to the embedded culture and symbolic connection between the
seasonal cycle, the passage of time, and eventual death (see Jones & Cloke, 2002).
As the ability of a memorial to endure time is often equated to the persistence of
living memory (Salisbury, 2002), the longevity of the tree species is key to
maintaining memories and continuing relationships with the deceased.
The stature and size of the tree are also key factors, with larger species such as
oak and beech proving popular choices. All of these qualities demonstrate the
desire for the memorial tree to have a ‘‘presence,’’ to be unique, and to be
identifiable within the wider landscape. One respondent tells of the pursuit for
such presence:
. . . my son was one of those energetic bouncing balls of life and love. He died of
an unexpected and unexplained heart attack. We wanted a tree one day that
TABLE 2. Reasons for selecting the memorial tree ranked in order of importance
would be enormous and have a presence. I think, in fact, in our grief we have
chosen the wrong type of beech (B/90).
Another respondent illustrates the thought that goes into assuring their tree will be
recognizable:
Most of the trees there had green leaves but this one had rich dark red leaves so
it will stand out (B/82).
It was the tree that grew in the front garden of our family house (B/27).
My mother cared for us for the first 18 years in Beech Avenue, the one outside
our house much the same age as us, grew with us (B/75).
It is the same species as one planted at home, which was a ruby wedding
anniversary gift from family (B/32).
The wide variety of ornamental trees and fruiting trees found in the burial ground,
which include, for example, robinia, magnolia, and pear, may reflect the in-
fluence that the domestic and familiar have upon the choice of memorial tree.
Woodland burial 255
The potential influence of the home on tree selection is perhaps far greater than it
might first appear from the list of selected memorial trees. Unfortunately, the level
of detail with which respondents were able to botanically identify the memorial
tree was extremely varied. Some gave both Latin and common names and even
variety or cultivar, while the majority only recorded the common name, for
example oak or willow. This lack of detail can misrepresent what is actually
happening in the burial ground. For example, cherry and willow are a popular
choice but there are native and ornamental forms for each species. Many of the
willow trees seen in the burial ground are in fact ornamental forms of the dwarf
weeping willow (Salix caprea ‘‘Pendula’’).
While the significance of longevity and the ability of trees to mark time has
already been identified, anecdotal evidence suggests that the marking of time is
also demonstrated more specifically by relating directly to events associated with
the deceased and the continued marking of significant life events:
We use silver birch twigs for our ‘‘Easter Tree’’ and Mum died at Easter
(B/16).
It flowers in the spring when he was conceived and has berries around the time
of his birthday (B/70).
TABLE 3. Motivations for planting a tree on the grave. Bereaved response group (n ¼ 90)
% Neither
% Strongly agree or % Strongly
Motivation agree % Agree disagree % Disagree disagree
The bereaved respondents were asked an additional statement about the extent
to which they agreed or disagreed that ‘‘the loved one has a presence through the
tree.’’ A total of 65.4% ‘‘strongly agreed’’ with this statement. For some the tree
would appear to become a ‘‘prosthetic device’’ (Berry, 1992), acting as a direct
substitute for the deceased. However, this statement also received the largest
percentage of strongly disagree responses (12.8%). This may reflect the fact that
58% of bereaved respondents identified their religion as Christian and that to
agree with this statement may compromise their belief in the resurrection.
When compared to a memorial headstone or plaque, the physical presence of
the tree, its ‘‘living’’ quality, and its ability to articulate the passing of time and
cycles of nature potentially make it a more powerful and emotive memorial object.
For some the tree may be perceived as the reincarnation of the deceased and the
relationship may be more intense because of the unique living qualities of the tree
to create a more corporeal connection:
In a way I see this much loved tree as an extension of my Mum. I would imagine
her being absorbed into the roots and living on in the form (B/21).
I come to spend time with my parents and remember all they did for me and
others. I feel a strong emotional contact with them due to the tree being alive
(B/45).
Other respondents record how the bodily remains have a tangible presence
assisting growth and producing the fruits and seeds that sustain wildlife:
Eventually when the roots stretch down that far . . . its fruits and flowers will
contain something of our son’s essence (B/70).
The natural cycles and progression of time observable through the tree also allow
it to embody metaphors of hope, life, and renewal while simultaneously providing
Woodland burial 257
a strong, physical presence with which to interact and draw strength from. In the
case of this respondent, the tree becomes a surrogate father:
My son was just 22 years. He loved life. I cried and screamed after the
funeral that I didn’t want to hug a f***ing tree. I felt very angry, still do, but I
do like seeing the tree taller now and representing beauty and life and I
hope when his daughter, now 6 years old, one day stands beside the thick trunk of
this tree, she will receive some pleasure and comfort from touching it (B/92).
The felt need to retain physical and psychological contact with the deceased is
facilitated in similar ways to those demonstrated at the traditional cemetery,
through the tending of the grave and tree.
I just feel I can talk to my late husband easier there while I am weeding his little
garden (B/80).
There is also evidence of a new desire to reconnect the public grave with the
private domain and reintegrate and maintain the deceased as a family member
through the physical presence of the tree and as earlier noted the selection of
ornamental garden trees. A small percentage of respondents (10%) recorded that
they took natural materials from their tree home with them, including nuts, fruit,
twigs, and leaves. Similarly, some respondents brought plant materials from their
private garden to the grave. This transference of materials suggests that there is a
desire to bring an element of the deceased to the private domain and integrate
them with aspects of everyday life.
These results suggest that having an individual tree is less about practical or
functional locating or marking the grave but more specifically about replacing and
possibly exceeding the symbolic role of the traditional grave marker; reconstruct-
ing identity, celebrating the individual, and providing a focus through which
continuing relationships can be expressed.
Conclusions
The findings from this study of a single woodland burial ground cannot be
translated into the experiences of other natural burial ground users. Each natural
burial ground has its own unique circumstances including context, design, and
management which will shape the user’s experience. This study begins to convey
the complex and interrelated motivations for choosing natural burial and, in the
case of this burial site, the importance of the grave tree.
A growing concern for the environment, dissatisfaction with existing cemetery
provision, and perhaps a desire for a new ‘‘ecological immortality’’ (Davis, 2005)
expressed through natural life cycles are important motives in attracting people to
natural burial. The desire for ‘‘ecological immortality’’ was expressed by one
respondent:
My body will feed the tree; the tree will grow, provide habitats for animals and
help the planet. How great is that! (P/3).
258 A. Clayden & K. Dixon
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments on the paper by the two
anonymous reviewers and Jenny Hockey, Paul Selman and Jan Woudstra. We would
also like to acknowledge the invaluable support we received from the manager,
staff and friends group of the woodland burial ground that we investigated.
Woodland burial 259
Notes
[1] Quotations from personal e-mail correspondence with Ken West, October 7, 2002.
[2] Information provided by the Natural Death Centre who then managed the Association of
Natural Burial Grounds (ANBG).
[3] Andrew Clayden has visited and met with burial ground managers at approximately 20 natural
burial sites within the UK.
[4] Information provided by Professor Jenny Hockey regarding the ESRC funded research project
‘‘Where have all the ashes gone?’’ Co-investigators Leonie Kelleher and Dr. David Prendergast.
[5] A shrub is a woody plant with multiple stems from the base. A tree is also a woody plant but has
a well defined stem or trunk and a head of branches.
[6] Not all respondents identified the gender of the deceased which accounts for the discrepancy in
total numbers between Figures 1 and 2.
[7] For the ecologists and natural scientist there is a clear distinction between what is a native plant
and therefore natural and what is non-native and either naturalized or exotic species. In simple
terms, a native plant is one that has continued to grow in Britain since the separation of Britain
from mainland Europe at the end of the last Ice Age. Naturalized or exotic species are those
which have been introduced to the British flora since this separation. For a fuller explanation see
Hitchmough and Fieldhouse (2004) and Jones and Cloke (2002).
REFERENCES
BERRY, M. (1992) Designing for eternity: The cemetery landscape as a therapeutic environment.
Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
BRADBURY, M. (1999) Representations of death: a social psychological perspective. London: Routledge.
BRADBURY, M. (2001) Forget me not: Memorialization in cemeteries and crematoria. In J. HOCKEY,
J. KATZ, & N. SMALL (Eds.), Grief, mourning and death ritual. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
BRIGHAM, D. (2002) Living memorials. Landscape Architecture, 14(2), 237 – 238.
CLAYDEN, A. (2003) Woodland burial. Landscape Design, 322, 22 – 25.
CLAYDEN, A. (2004) Natural burial. British style. Landscape Architecture, 94(5), 68 – 77.
CLEGG, F. (1989) Cemeteries for the Living. Landscape Design, 184, 15 – 17.
CLOKE, P. & JONES, O. (2004) Turning in the graveyard: trees and the hybrid geogra-
phies of dwelling, monitoring and resistance in a Bristol cemetery. Cultural Geographies, 11,
313 – 341.
CODER, K. (1996) Cultural aspects of trees: Traditions and myths. Retrieved June, 2004, from
http://www.stavacademy.co.uk/mimir/culturaltrees.htm
DAVIS, D. J. (2005) A brief history of death. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
FRANCIS, D., KELLAHER, L., & NEOPHYTOU, G. (2000) Sustaining cemeteries: the user perspective.
Mortality, 5(1), pp. 34 – 51.
FRANCIS, D., KELLAHER, L., & SMALL, N. (2001) The cemetery: the evidence of continuing bonds.
In J. HOCKEY, J. KATZ, & N. SMALL (Eds.), Grief, mourning and death ritual. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
FRANCIS, D., KELLAHER, L., & NEOPHYTOU, G. (2005) The secret cemetery. Oxford: Berg.
FROW, J. (1997) Time and commodity culture: Essays in cultural theory and post-modernity. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
GOODY, J., & POPPI, C. (1994) Flowers and bones: Approaches to the dead in Anglo-American and Italian
cemeteries. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, pp. 146 – 175.
HALLAM, E., & HOCKEY, J. (2001) Death, memory and material culture. Oxford: Berg.
HC91-1 (2001) Cemeteries: environment, transport and regional affaires committee. London: The
Stationary Office.
HITCHMOUGH, J., & FIELDHOUSE, K. (2004) The plant user handbook. Oxford: Blackwell.
HOCKEY, J., KATZ, J., & SMALL, N. (2001) Grief, mourning and death ritual. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
HOCKEY, J., KELLAHER, L., & PRENDERGAST, D. (2005) In the shadow of the traditional grave.
Mortality, 10(4), 237 – 250.
260 A. Clayden & K. Dixon
HOUSE OF COMMONS (2001) Cemeteries: report and proceedings of the committee, together with the minutes
of evidence taken before the environment sub-committee, eighth Report, Vol. 1: Environment transport
and regional affairs committee. London: The Stationary Office.
HUYSSEN, A. (1995) Twilight memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. London: Routledge.
JONES, O., & CLOKE, P. (2002) Tree cultures. Oxford: Berg.
JORDAN, M. (2001) The green mantle: An investigation into our lost knowledge of plants. Unpublished:
Masters Thesis.
KAPLAN, S., & KAPLAN, R. (1982) Humanscape: environments for people. Michigan: Ulrich’s
Bookstore.
KLASS, D., SILVERMAN, R., & NICKMAN, S. L. (1996) Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief.
London: Taylor & Francis.
MACNAGHTEN, P., & URRY, J. (1998) Contested natures. London: Sage.
MACNAGHTEN, P., & URRY, J. (2000a) Introduction. Body and Society, 6(3 – 4), 1 – 11.
MACNAGHTEN, P., & URRY, J. (2000b) Bodies in the woods. Body and Society, 6(3 – 4), 166 – 182.
RUGG, J. (2000) Defining the place of burial: what makes a cemetery a cemetery? Mortality, 5(3),
259 – 276.
SALISBURY, M. (2002) From my death, may life come forth: A feasibility study of the woodland cemetery in
Canada. Unpublished: Masters Thesis. University of Geulph.
ULRICH, R. S. (1981) Natural versus urban scenes some psychological effects. Environment and
Behaviour, 13(5), 523 – 556.
WALTER, T. (1994) The revival of death. London: Routledge.
WIENRICH, S., & SPEYER, J. (2003) The natural death handbook. London: Rider.
WORPOLE, K. (1997) The cemetery in the city. Pembrokeshire: Eco Distribution.
WORPOLE, K. (2003) Where the dead live. Prospect Magazine, 85. Retrieved June, 2004, from http://
www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article¼11894
Biographical Notes
Andrew Clayden is a Lecturer and Landscape Architect who teaches at the Department of
Landscape University of Sheffield. His research interests include cemetery design, grave reuse, and
its potential impact on the cemetery landscape and natural burial.
Katie Dixon is a practising Landscape Architect who recently graduated from the University of
Sheffield Department of Landscape. Her Masters dissertation focused on the adoption of plants as
objects of memory.