Sydney’s Other Housing Crisis: The Cemetery
Abstract: Sydney faces a shortage of burial space, with predictions indicating that cemetery capacity may be exhausted by 2050. Solutions are imperative as our population grows and ages. In a rapidly expanding city such as Sydney, there is no easy solution to this issue. Possible responses include the obvious, such as supplying additional burial land, but may include adopting sustainable burial practices to prolong a cemetery’s life. Recognising the challenges associated with providing additional cemetery land, the interment industry has begun to explore sustainable burial practices. This paper discusses renewable tenure for burial plots—the subsequent re-use of graves as a means of providing ongoing cemetery capacity. A series of in-depth interviews with cemetery operators and funeral directors reveals current operational uncertainties of renewable tenure and raises speculation of public knowledge and acceptance of this form of burial. Additionally, an online pilot survey facilitated through a social media platform has provided insights into the interment preferences and opinions on renewable interment rights of individuals aged of twenty and thirty and living in the Sydney metropolitan area.
Introduction The interment industry is exploring sustainable burial practices to prolong the life of cemeteries. In 2008, the Department of Lands released a discussion paper titled “Sustainable Burials in Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area”, which was a significant catalyst for the creation of the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2013, the first consolidated piece of legislation applying to Crown, local government and privately-owned cemeteries. The paper drew attention to the looming shortage of burial space across Metropolitan Sydney, acknowledging two possible methods for providing additional burial capacity: 1) use existing cemeteries more sustainably, and 2) open new cemeteries at a high cost and at increasing distances from city nodes (Department of Lands 2008, p. 9). The Sydney Metropolitan region undertakes approximately half of the total of interment services across New South Wales (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2015). Predictions indicate that the 310,000 to 330,000 available burial plots at 2016 will likely be exhausted by 2050 (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2016, p. 52). Whilst burials account for 33.7 per cent of interment services across Metropolitan Sydney (cremations at 66.3 per cent), a projected increase in the number of deaths per annum will result in a growing demand for burial space. The number of deaths per annum is expected to rise form 24,330 in 2011, to 37,700 by 2041 (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2016, p. 53). This is a planning matter as evidenced in Sydney’s current metropolitan strategy, A Plan for Growing Sydney and the Draft District Plans, which recognised the need to undertake cemetery capacity and demand studies to aid in quantifying, identifying and protecting suitable additional burial land (NSW Department of Planning and Environment 2014, p. 61). However, to date, this represents the extent to which burial capacity is acknowledged as a critical issue within strategic planning policies and the extent to which interment sites are incorporated as essential infrastructure within a city (Bennett & Davies 2014). Renewable interment right or renewable tenure (the re-use of older graves) is a burial right which allows the right holder to bury human remains in a grave left undisturbed for a predetermined period. Under the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2013 (the Act), the right is to be granted for an initial 25- year period and may be periodically renewed for a maximum tenure of 99 years (Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2013). Once the right has expired, the grave may be re-used for subsequent burials. A renewable interment right differs from a perpetual burial right where there is a reasonable expectation that the human remains in a grave will be left undisturbed forever (in perpetuity) (NSW Department of Primary Industries n.d.). Graves in perpetuity are often viewed as unsustainable; however, across Sydney, the majority of burial rights are currently provided in perpetuity. Llewellyn (1998, cited in Longoria 2014, p. 357) states that the interment industry is the only industry that “sells something once and takes care of it forever”. The following section provides a brief background of the landscape of the Australian cemetery.
Background Rapid population growth in urban areas in the mid-1800s and increasing sanitary concerns in crowded urban church grounds resulted in the creation of large, purpose-built cemeteries on the urban fringe, known as the Victorian-era cemeteries (Rugg 2006; Yarwood et al. 2015; Deering 2010). Provided by the government and private companies, Victorian-era cemeteries redefined the provision of burial space as a “civic rather than spiritual responsibility” (Rugg 2006, p. 215; Curl 1993). Rugg (2006, p.
215) describes the period between 1850 and 1880 as the “golden age” of cemetery development: great capital was invested in cemeteries, and the landscape was a symbol of municipal pride with headstones and ornate statues suggesting a “riotous reflection of identity” (Rugg 2006, p. 213) and a dedication to display class and social status within the cemetery landscape (Yarwood et al. 2015). In Sydney, Rookwood Necropolis, the 200-hectare Crown Cemetery, opened in 1866 as a result of similar urban pressures such as land shortage (Bennett & Davies 2014).
Figure 1: Victorian-era section of Rookwood Necropolis (Ryan 2016). Socio-economic and cultural changes in the twentieth century resulted in the decline of Victorian-era cemeteries (Brooks 1989). This was partly led by a social rejection of class ideals “indicative of an overly commercial culture in which a concern for status had overtaken the expression of sincere sentiment” (Rugg 2006, p. 219). Also, Victorian-era monuments were inconsistent with the aesthetic ideals of uniformity and cleanliness and proved hard to maintain. This resulted in a gradual transition to the contemporary lawn cemetery, which remains popular today. The lawn cemetery is simplistic in design and advantageous to maintain, with modest headstones set in lawn and laid out in a grid pattern (Rugg 2006; Brooks 1989). An emerging movement across several countries, particularly Britain, is natural burial grounds (also referred to as woodland burials or green burials) (Yarwood et al. 2015). A natural burial ground involves minimal alterations to the natural landscape, and burials are characterised by limited body embalmment, the use of biodegradable coffins, and minimal or no use of grave markers (NSW Department of Lands 2008, p. 27). Although limited, one example in Sydney is the Sydney Natural Burial Park located at Kemps Creek which is discussed below. There is much to consider in the future of cemeteries—what they will look like and how we will bury—but the unavoidable fundamental issue is land use.
Many cemeteries and memorials hold continued significance within society as whole, such as historic cemeteries and war memorials (Basmajian & Coutts 2010; Kong 1999); however, it is important to recognise that the significance of a cemetery or a plot varies on a case-by-case basis, varying between individuals, families, cultures and religious groups (Rugg 2006; Woodthorpe 2011; Wichersham & Yehl 2013; Francis, Kellaher & Neophytou 2000). The cemetery is an intensely personal public space, and the significance of the landscape can be linked to the bereaving’s need to focus grief in a physical space (Kellaher, Prendergast & Hockey 2005, p. 242). However, the significance of a grave not only varies between individuals but also varies “as time accrues between the living and the dead” (Rugg 2000, p. 259). These are both relevant considerations when unpacking public acceptance of renewable tenure. The significance of a grave over time poses the question as to whether the bereaving seek comfort in memorialising the deceased in perpetuity or whether a physical
space for mourning is only required for an initial period, which is of particular importance when considering future uptake of renewable interment rights. The abandonment of older cemeteries upon reaching burial capacity continues this debate about cemeteries (Davies & Bennett 2016; Perkins 2003; Longoria 2014; Woodthorpe 2011; Harvey 2006; Francis, Kellaher & Neophytou 2000). This is linked with a distinct set of maintenance and management challenges exclusive to the cemetery. Through an adaption of the life cycle concept proposed by the Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust, Davies and Bennett (2016, p. 99) illustrate that cemetery abandonment is reached preceding the active burial years of a cemetery. Cemetery abandonment stems from the nature of perpetual burial rights: once a cemetery reaches capacity, a lack of incoming revenue limits the ability to fund cemetery maintenance. Thus, cemeteries providing graves in perpetuity resemble a finite resource, and they can represent a neglected land use if ongoing maintenance cannot be funded. The uptake of renewable interment rights presents the possibility for cemeteries to escape the traditional linear cemetery life cycle, as grave re-use provides a constant stream of revenue to fund cemetery maintenance (Davies & Bennett 2016, p. 104). The literature available to date and preliminary policy discussions surrounding additional burial space reveal that the cemetery is a complex landscape, “simultaneously a site of emotion, commerce and community” (Woodthorpe 2011, p. 261). The interaction and importance of these factors form the basis of investigating and discussing the shortage of burial space and the future acceptance and uptake of renewable tenure in Sydney. The following section details the findings of in-depth interviews with key sectors of the internment industry, including cemetery operators, funeral directors and Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW (CCNSW, also referred to as the Agency)—the regulatory body responsible for overseeing the cemetery operating sector and reporting on cemetery capacity and interment trends in New South Wales. Three key themes are discussed below, including existing cemetery capacity and burial demand, enacting and practicing renewable tenure, and lastly, the future acceptance of renewable tenure, which have been explored through in-depth interviews with members of the funeral industry and through a pilot study survey.
Findings and Discussion The following table summarises the interviewees.
Interviewee Reference Position and Organisation Industry Sector
the Agency Cemeteries and Regulating State Agency Crematoria NSW—various personnel O’Meara CEO, Catholic Metropolitan Crown Trust Operator Cemeteries Trust (CMCT); President of Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association Hardgrove Cemetery Manager, Catholic Crown Trust Operator Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT) Sevil Chief Financial Crown Trust Operator Officer, Northern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (NMCT) Diebert Cemetery Manager, Waverley Local Government Cemetery Operator
Hambly Funeral Director, Joseph Funeral Industry Medcalf Funerals
Mueller Funeral Director, Nepean Funeral Industry Valley Funerals
Theme 1: Cemetery capacity and future burial demand
All interviewees, including cemetery operators and funeral directors, agreed that there is an inadequate supply of cemetery land to meet the future burial demand of Metropolitan Sydney. Remaining burial capacity varies geographically across Metropolitan Sydney, with Sevil and Diebert (pers. comm.) noting that burial space will be exhausted much sooner than the 2050 prediction, both in older cemeteries and in localities where cemeteries are tightly landlocked. In addition to this, population growth and demographic composition will also result in variations in the demand for burial land geographically across Metropolitan Sydney. For these reasons, Crown Trusts operating across Metropolitan Sydney undertake cemetery-demand studies based on the demographic composition of a defined cemetery catchment. This approach allows operators to predict the number of remaining active burial years and the future demand across an identified catchment. Such data forms part of the operator’s business procedures for existing cemeteries and informs decision making relating to the location of future cemeteries.
For Catholic Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (CMCT), a demand assessment was particularly important in justifying the need for a new Crown cemetery at Varroville, Macarthur Memorial Park. The cemetery-demand assessment highlighted the need for additional burial land within a defined catchment, granting the planning proposal support from the Joint Regional Planning Panel in the early phases of the proposal’s assessment (NSW Planning Panels 2016). The Trust’s study found that if no additional burial plots were made available, capacity in this region would be fully exhausted by 2042 (Urbis 2015, p. 14). From this example, it can be argued that subregional and catchment-based capacity studies provide strong evidence that some Sydney communities will face a critical shortage of burial space prior to others. This research argues that analysing capacity and demand at a subregional level is important as spatial data highlights the urgency of the issue at hand. It also provides data with greater transferability to the process of strategic planning, providing a more compelling argument for consideration of burial demand in the planning industry. CCNSW are currently preparing Greater Sydney Cemetery Capacity Survey Report analysing available cemetery capacity across the Sydney Metropolitan Region (forthcoming 2017) (the Agency, pers. comm. 2016). However, as noted by Diebert (pers. comm.) and Davies and Bennett (2016, p. 100), capacity studies are a difficult undertaking as record keeping processes in older cemeteries has typically been poor.
O’Meara, Hardgrove and Sevil (pers. comm.) all expressed that, regardless of the future uptake of renewable tenure, a more immediate solution to the shortage of burial space is required. Part 4 of the Act (relating to the operation of renewable tenure) has not been enacted, and there is little guidance or motivation for cemetery operators to offer this form of burial right. Part 4 of the Act will not be applied retrospectively to existing graves subject to a perpetual burial right. As such, cemetery operators expressed that it is unlikely that the future introduction of renewable tenure will prolong the life of existing cemeteries. Furthermore, the time taken for a grave to become available for re-use is between twenty-five and ninety-nine years after the first interment. All cemetery operators and funeral directors interviewed recognised that these factors result in the need for additional burial land across Sydney.
When considering travel distances to a cemetery, Diebert, Hardgrove and Hambly (pers. comm.) all note that loved ones do not wish to travel far to visit a grave. Hardgrove suggests that this threshold is met at approximately thirty minutes. Hambly (pers. comm.) expressed the following when considering reduced cemetery access:
To have somewhere to visit that body is a very important part of the grieving process that as a modern society we are really missing out on (Hambly 2016).
According to Diebert (pers. comm.) many people aspire to be buried within a cemetery because of their attachment to the local area. This preference will be challenged in Sydney’s Eastern District, where according to research, the approximate 8,260 available burial plots in the district will be exhausted by as soon as 2022 if burials for this population are undertaken in Eastern District cemeteries (Urbis 2017).Hambly (pers. comm.), explained that many local Aboriginal communities of Sydney’s eastern most suburbs choose to be buried at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, Matraville, in connection to their traditional land. These insights suggest that there is a need for greater spatial appreciation when contemplating the importance of a cemetery within a community.
CMCT and Northern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (NMCT) stressed the importance of the identification of new cemetery land in local and regional planning processes. Both operators compared
Sydney to other Australian capital cities, such as Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne, suggesting that Sydney’s predicament presents greater urgency due to a lack of strategic-planning attention. Sevil (pers. comm.) commented that cemeteries are not planned for in new land-release areas, yet other infrastructure is, such as hospitals and schools. O’Meara (pers. comm.) drew attention to the fact that cemeteries are a prohibited land use throughout the entirety of the Campbelltown LGA, despite the locality’s fringe location and its position within the South West Growth Centre.
Despite these challenges, the Agency highlighted their involvement in the strategic-planning process and their consultation with the DPE in the preparation of A Plan for Growing Sydney. CCNSW further engaged with the Greater Sydney Commission in the preparation of the draft District Plans. CCNSW’s involvement in the preparation of the Draft District Plans seeks to ensure appropriate representation of the community need for additional cemetery infrastructure (the Agency, pers. comm. 2016).
Theme 2: Enacting and practicing renewable tenure and its operational considerations
As described above, currently, there is no enforced legislative guidance or parameters relating to the practice of renewable tenure for Crown cemeteries in New South Wales. The Agency (pers. comm.) alluded that enactment of Part 4 of the Act could occur in 2017. Notably, both Crown Trusts expressed that increased political will is required for both the commencement of Part 4 and for the roll out of renewable tenure as a burial option; they offered the following comments:
You have to have the political will, and you also have to have the urgency around diminishing burial space (O’Meara 2016).
It’s a politically sensitive issue, and I don’t think any government wants to put their name against the introduction of something that may cause strife for them (Hardgrove 2016.)
Sensitivity surrounding renewable tenure is an important consideration of burial requirements of religious groups. Interviewees from Crown Trusts and the funeral industry noted that renewable tenure may not be supported by members of Islamic, Jewish and Orthodox faiths. The culturally diverse nature of Sydney was highlighted by O’Meara, who noted that extensive community consultation will be required to understand various community burial needs, a concept which was also stressed by academics Francis, Kellaher and Neophytou (2000).
Case studies of renewable tenure in Sydney
Renewable tenure is currently practiced in two Sydney cemeteries, Waverley Cemetery and Sydney Natural Burial Park (Kemps Creek). In 2014, a total of 70 interments under renewable tenure were reported, representing 0.55% of all full body interments for that year (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2016, p. 31). Discussions with both operators revealed vastly different operational considerations regarding cemetery context and the practice of renewable tenure. Given the form and function of these cemeteries (as discussed below), the existing practice of renewable tenure provides limited applicable operational insights which would inform the future practice of renewable tenure for the contemporary lawn cemetery. Nevertheless, the comparative discussion below provides insights into the current context and operation of renewable tenure in Sydney.
Waverley Cemetery is an iconic Victorian-era cemetery fronting the ocean at Bronte. The cemetery solely operates under renewable tenure and has done so since the cemetery first opened in 1877 (Diebert 2016). The cemetery’s spectacular backdrop accounts for high community interest in the preservation and conservation of the landscape. Capacity at Waverley Cemetery relies upon reclaiming burial plots which were once sold yet never used. Upon expiry of the tenure period, the right holders must renew their tenures if they wish to undertake works to monuments or to open graves for a subsequent interment.
The Sydney Natural Burial Park is a natural burial cemetery located in Kemps Creek, first opening in 2010. In stark contrast to Waverley Cemetery, the site is positioned in a bushland setting, and no monuments are used to mark graves. The initial tenure period for a grave is thirty years with the option to renew after that period. O’Meara (pers. comm.) notes that this offering is closely linked to sustainability, which has an increasing influence on society’s burial preferences. Despite the clear contextual differences between these cemeteries, both are considered by the operators to be a “niche product”. Waverley Cemetery’s iconic location and historic significance result in an exclusive burial
option, whereas Sydney Natural Burial Park relates to sustainability and a less traditional approach to memorialisation. When considering the lack of personal memorialisation, which sets the Sydney Natural Burial Park apart from other CMCT cemeteries, O’Meara noted the following:
I think they go together. Natural burial and renewable tenure are really about sustainable burial practices (O’Meara 2016).
When viewing renewable tenure as a means of providing ongoing cemetery capacity, the relationship between the operating factors of the burial right and the re-use of graves is a key consideration seen in both practicing examples. Due to Waverley Cemetery’s ability to reclaim unused allotments, the cemetery has never had to re-use a grave, despite its ability to do so under a tenure scheme. Diebert (pers. comm.) commented that due to the historic significance and a strong sense of community ownership of the cemetery, there would never be an appetite for the re-use of plots exhibiting significant monumental work, nor would this be permitted under heritage controls. If re-use was to be practiced, this would first occur to plots with single interments and no headstone.
Figure 2: Waverly Cemetery (Ryan 2016).
Figure 3: Sydney Natural Burial Park. Park burial plots are located in the bushland beyond the wooden fence (Catholic Cemeteries and Crematoria 2016).
Financial considerations of renewable tenure
Both Crown Trusts acknowledged that the future offering of renewable tenure would be informed by detailed price modelling. Prices would have to be responsive to the financial cost of operating under a tenure scheme. The perceived value of a renewable burial plot compared with a perpetual plot would also be a key consideration. In this sense, the financial considerations of renewable tenure can be discussed from an operational perspective and a public perspective.
The physical and administrative costs of operating a renewable tenure scheme were highlighted by both Trusts. The physical processes of re-digging, re-burying, re-turfing, and relocating or disposing of former memorials come at a labour-intensive cost for cemetery operators. Renewable tenure is also accompanied with notable administrative costs, including detailed record keeping and contact attempts such as letter sending and phone calls, to inform right holders of the expiry and the re-use of a plot. Administratively and operationally, this means
Everything that we do in relation to a sale for a renewable tenure grave is entirely different for a perpetual grave (Hardgrove 2016).
A perpetual grave represents a more simplistic costing exercise, whereby the price of the grave must reflect the physical cost of the interment in addition to contributions towards the perpetual maintenance of the cemetery grounds. Cemetery maintenance largely includes landscape management, the upkeep of roads and other cemetery infrastructure, and the repair of monuments when considered a safety hazard. Sevil (pers. comm.) explained that within a garden cemetery such as Macquarie Park, the sale of a burial right for lawn plot is a break-even exercise, stating the following:
We need those returns to be viable. If we can’t get those returns, that’s a business we shouldn’t be touching (Sevil 2016).
When considering the future offering of renewable tenure, both Trusts debated the pricing of a renewable grave in comparison to a grave provided in perpetuity. Within an interment system that will offer both types of burial rights, a key task for operators will be stipulating the value of renewable tenure compared with a perpetual grave. At the heart of this consideration is the fact that one burial option has a limited life span, whereas the other is offered forever. O’Meara (pers. comm.) likened this burial choice to any other consumer choice, whereby price and quality will be considered, stating the following:
If the differentiation between pricing isn’t great, I think a lot of people will buy the perpetual grave site because they have it forever (2016).
A similar comment was offered by Sevil (pers. comm.), who stated:
If the price is too close to perpetual, it will turn people away (2016).
The successful resale of a used burial plot is a pivotal consideration in this discussion, from both a financial and burial capacity point of view. As revealed in the Waverley case, the practice of renewable tenure does not necessarily translate to the re-use of graves. Within a different context to Waverley, the ability to re-sell a used grave was of concern to Sevil (pers. comm.), who believes there will be limited demand for a used grave. Sevil (pers. comm.) noted that a used plot will likely have to be sold at a discounted rate, suggesting that prospective purchasers assign a higher value to an unused grave.
Further to this discussion, Sevil (pers. comm.) conveyed the belief that the introduction of renewable tenure as a burial option will increase the demand for cemetery land. In this sense, the introduction of a more affordable burial option may not necessarily erode the quantum of people choosing burial in perpetuity, however it would create its own market. If renewable tenure is promoted as a new interment offering, due to pricing, it may reduce future cremation rates and increase burial rates (both renewable and perpetual) resulting in the need for additional burial land. Whether a used grave can be priced to ensure financial feasibility for operators whilst also be viewed as an attractive option to the consumer will determine whether renewable tenure can provide ongoing cemetery capacity to meet the demand for additional cemetery space.
The future offering of renewable tenure and cemetery form
The operational uncertainties discussed above reflected an unsure and noncommittal response from both Trusts regarding the future offering of renewable tenure. CMCT noted that they will likely offer renewable tenure in a section of Macarthur Memorial Park, yet the determined quantum would rely on costing studies and an understanding of consumer demand. O’Meara (pers. comm.) noted that the demand for renewable tenure is currently unknown, offering the following comment regarding burial demand:
You are only talking about a third of the population, of that third, how many would be wed to the notion of having a perpetual grave versus a renewable tenure grave? This is untested in Sydney (O’Meara, pers. comm.).
CMCT believes that the cost equation for both the cemetery and the consumer would have a large influence on the future offering of renewable tenure. Nevertheless, based on the intensive operating model of renewable tenure, Hardgrove (pers. comm.) stated that she would not wish to operate renewable tenure for an entire cemetery. Hardgrove and O’Meara (pers. comm.) also had the opinion that renewable tenure will have a niche market.
Sevil (pers. comm.) stated that NMCT would not welcome the enactment of Part 4 until operators could be assured of additional land. Whilst a token amount of renewable tenure may be offered in future cemeteries to appease the regulators, Sevil revealed no intention to offer renewable tenure in existing NMCT cemeteries. In addition, any erosion into a cemetery’s funds would jeopardise the Trust’s ability to provide perpetual cemetery maintenance. Uncertainties relating to the public attitudes and demand for renewable tenure proved a key consideration for cemetery operators.
As such, the next section of this paper will now discuss public attitudes towards renewable tenure which have been gained from insights offered both from the funeral industry and from data rendered from an online pilot survey.
Theme 3: Burial preferences and attitudes towards renewable tenure The Pilot Study An anonymous online survey administered through typeform.com on a social media platform allowed
for a preliminary indication of interment preferences and attitudes relating to re-use of graves. A nonprobability convenience sample (Battaglia 2008); 125 Generation Ys born between 1978 and 1994 (Sheahan 2005), living in Sydney was used. Generation Y provides an easy descriptor of the survey population; it is noted that the survey was limited to individuals aged twenty to thirty, which approximately translates to birth years ranging from 1985 to 1995. Although convenience sampling is not a scientific sample, it is recognised as a valuable and suitable means to explore a hypothesis which may trigger further scientific research. Limiting the target population to a defined age group immediately focussed the scope of the survey, which allowed for greater ease of analysis in a limited research time frame. The defined population are considered highly active on social media and are equipped with the skills to access and complete an online survey (Hill, Dean & Murphy 2014). Additionally, opinions of this age group will help inform future demand for burial space and burial options (Couttes, Basmajian & Chapin 2011; Davies & Bennett 2016).
Participants were introduced to the concept and practice of renewable tenure before being asked if they were previously aware of the burial option and were then asked a series of qualitative questions relating to renewable tenure. Qualitative responses from the survey were emotive. In general, respondents acknowledged Sydney’s predicament regarding the shortage of burial space whilst also linking this to shifting burial practices: “Reducing our footprint on the environment can still be achieved even after we die”, “Land is at such a premium, and we no longer celebrate people by visiting what was once them, marked by a stone” and “I think it will become more acceptable over time, as younger people are aware of the shortage of space in Sydney throughout their lifestyles (rents, higher density workplaces, etc).” On the other hand, there were opposing remarks such as “If they paid for the burial ground then they should be there forever” or “As a Jew, my religion doesn’t accept cremation, and I believe my body should be preserved in a sacred and holy manner. I would personally perceive the reuse of my grave as compromising my religious values”. Reflecting on his professional experience as a funeral director, Mueller (pers. comm.) noted that most individuals have a view on their preference of burial or cremation. The survey data is consistent with this whereby 81 per cent of respondents identified that they had a view on their burial preferences with just over two thirds selecting cremation as their preference. Remaining responses were divided between those choosing burial and those who were unsure. As discussed above, the significance of a grave can vary over time. This reality of time was also captured by Gen Y respondents as some individuals noted that, as time passes, the significance of the physical space of interment decreases: “I think the sentimental value of having a place to visit deceased relatives diminishes over time” and “I would propose approximately seventy to eighty years [as a tenure period]—long enough that everyone who knew this person in living memory has now passed on themselves”. Whilst this opinion challenges the notion of a grave as a “final resting place”, it echoes Maddrell and Sidaway’s (2010) concept that remembrance transcends beyond a physical grave.
Society’s overall awareness and knowledge about renewable tenure as a burial option will impact its demand. Muller and Hambly (pers. comm.) both agreed that, in general, people are not aware of this option. Not surprisingly, 72 per cent of respondents stated that they were unaware of renewable tenure as a burial-rite option, and, interestingly, they suggested that public education of the practice increases understanding and acceptance. For example, one respondent wrote, “I think a lot of the success of the renewable burial will fall onto the positive promotion methods which could change people’s views on burial grounds being an eternal resting place,” echoing similar conclusions of Canning and Szmigin (2010). Hambly (pers. comm.) suggested a breakaway from traditional funeral and burial practices, noting that there are now several options, including ash scattering and green burials. Aligned with this view, a select number of survey respondents acknowledged changing practices and their less traditional burial preferences, including wishes to be turned into a tree (bio-urn) or to be buried at sea or in a worm farm. In this sense, not only is the cemetery landscape changing, but burial practices are too, indicating that the acceptance and practice of renewable tenure may change over time. A key emerging theme amongst survey and interview data was the lack of comfort expressed when considering the disturbance of a grave and the exclusive entitlement to space. “When someone dies and is buried, there is a general expectation that the burial site would be a final resting place. The idea of disturbing a body that is at rest isn’t something that I am comfortable with. You shouldn’t have to pay to remain buried.” “The idea of re-using graves makes me feel uncomfortable, but, at the same time, the rational part of me understands that it makes sense. I just don’t want to have to make a decision about a reuse, e.g., to renew my parents’ graves.”
Recommendations Following on from the discussions detailed above, the recommendations of this research relate to two distinct areas: the need for additional burial space in short and medium term, and the need to consult and educate with the public and the interment industry on the operation and practice of renewable tenure. As established above, operational uncertainties within the interment industry, unknown demand and a perceived and measured lack of public knowledge of renewable indicate that there is currently limited scope for renewable tenure to aid in meeting the demand burial space across Sydney. As such, it is recommended that the Department of Planning and Environment consider cemeteries as essential infrastructure and as an essential component of the strategic-planning processes. Further to this recommendation, the Department of Planning and Environment should continue to confer with CCNSW and cemetery operators to understand industry trends, including burial demand and cremation and burial rates in order to plan for sufficient burial space. Studies currently under preparation by CCNSW will produce valuable spatial data which can be transferred to the process of strategic land-use planning. This will highlight the spatial urgency of this issue specific to districts across Sydney. A subregional approach will provide greater transferability between interment data reported by CCNSW and the strategic-planning process undertaken by the DPE and local councils.
Secondly, to educate the public on new burial offerings such as renewable interment and natural burials, it is recommended that CCNSW ensures that the wider public and the interment industry are consulted and educated on the operation of renewable tenure and that CCNSW seeks public feedback on other sustainable burial practices, such as natural burials. Research findings suggest that public acceptance of renewable tenure may increase over time as the public becomes aware of this form of burial. Education will be vital for this to occur, which should include the promotion of this option as a sustainable burial choice.
There are a few ways in which this research could be expanded. Firstly, include interviews of all five Crown Trusts operating in Sydney. Secondly, a case-study approach methodology investigating operator experiences in their transition to a renewable tenure scheme may provide valuable information for the interment industry in general. Thirdly, there is much scope for the survey to be expanded (e.g., collecting data sets relating to age, religious and cultural background, income, and geographical location). Finally, exploring emerging sustainable burial practices, such as natural burials, will present a unique form which is not representative of the traditional cemetery landscape and multi-functional cemetery landscapes.
Conclusion This research has discussed both the operational considerations of renewable tenure and the more personal considerations inherently attached to this topic. At this point in time, based in the in-depth interviews, there is currently limited scope for renewable tenure to aid in meeting the demand burial space across Sydney. Renewable tenure is a new concept across Metropolitan Sydney, and a conversation about this form of burial has been limited. For many, an individual’s choice to select between two different burial rights will not be an easy decision. For this reason, the future acceptance and uptake of renewable tenure will require a socio-cultural shift in the way we view burial, which is unlikely to occur in the short or medium term.
References Basmajian, C & Coutts, C 2010, “Planning for the Disposal of the Dead”, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 305–317. Battaglia, M 2008, “Convenience Sampling”, in The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Survey Research Methods, J. M. Lepkowski (ed.), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bennett, G & Davies, P J 2014, “Urban cemetery planning and the conflicting role of local and regional interests”, Land Use Policy, vol. 42, pp. 450–459. Brooks, C 1989, Mortal remains: the history and present state of the Victorian and Edwardian cemetery, Wheaton Publishers Ltd, Exeter. Canning, L & Szmigin, I 2010, “Death and disposal: The universal environmental dilemma”, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 26, no. 11–12, pp. 1129–1142. Catholic Cemeteries and Crematoria 2013, Natural Burial, accessed 2 September 2016, < http://www.sydneynaturalburialparks.com.au/natural-burial.html> Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2013 (NSW).
Coutts, C, Basmajian, C & Chapin, T 2011, “Projecting landscapes of death”, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 102, pp. 254–261. Curl, J S 1993, A Celebration of Death, B T Batsfords Ltd., London. Davies, P J & Bennett, G 2016, “Planning provision and perpetuity of deathscapes – Past and future trends and the impact for city planners”, Land Use Policy, vol. 55, pp. 98–107. Deering, B 2010, “From Anti-Social Behaviour to X-Rated: Exploring Social Diversity and Conflict in the Cemetery”, in A Maddrell & J D Sidaway (eds) 2010, Deathscapes: Spaces for Death, Dying Mourning and Remembrance, Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, England, pp. 95–94. Diebert, M 2016, Interview [Interview with Margaret Diebert, 29 August 2016]. Francis, D, Kellaher, L & Neophytou, G 2000, “Sustaining cemeteries: the user perspective”, Mortality, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 34–52. Hambly, C 2016, Interview [Interview with Cody Hambly, 22 September 2016]. Hardgrove, L 2016, Interview [Interview with Lauren Hardgrove, 24 August 2016]. Harvey, T 2006, “Sacred spaces, common places: the cemetery in the contemporary American city”, The Geography Review, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 295–312. Hill, C A Dean, E & Murphy, J (eds) 2014, Social Media, Sociality, and Survey Research, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey. Hussein, I & Rugg, J 2006, “Managing London’s dead: a case of strategic policy failure”, Mortality, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 209–221. Kellaher, L, Prendergast, D & Hockey, J 2005, “In the shadow of the traditional grave”, Mortality, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 237–250. Lepkowski, J M 2008 “Population”, in The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Survey Research Methods, J M Lepkowski (ed.), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Longoria, T 2014, “Are we all Equal at Death? Death Competence in Municipal Cemetery Management”, Death Studies, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 355–364. Maddrell, A & Sidaway J D (eds) 2010, Deathscapes: Spaces for Death, Dying Mourning and Remembrance, Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, England. Mueller, J 2016, Interview [Interview with Jim Mueller, 5 September 2016]. NSW Department of Environment and Planning 2014, A Plan for Growing Sydney, DPE, Sydney, accessed 21 April 2016,
Hardy Grant, Prahran. The Agency 2016, Interview [Interview with Cemeteries and Crematoria NSW, 31 August 2016]. Urbis 2015, Western Sydney Cemetery Demand Assessment, accessed 28 September 2016,http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/DevelopmentandPlanningRegister/tabid/62/ ctl/view/mid/424/JRPP_ID/2500/language/en-AU/Default.aspx Urbis 2017, Inner Sydney Cemetery Demand Assessment, confidential internal research report, Sydney, 20 September 2017.
Wickersham, M E & Yehl, R 2013, “Public Cemetery: Meeting New Challenges in a Time of Change”, Public Manager, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 62–65 Woodthorpe, K 2011, “Sustaining the contemporary cemetery: Implementing policy alongside conflicting perspectives and purpose”, Mortality, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 259– 276. Yarwood, R, Sidaway, J D, Kelly, C & Stillwell, S 2015, “Sustainable deathstyles? The geography of green burials in Britain”, The Geography Journal, vol. 181, no. 2, pp. 172–184.
Figure References: Figure 1: Ryan, K 2016, Victorian Rookwood, Photograph taken 2 September 2016. Figure 2: Ryan, K 2016, Waverley Cemetery Sunset, Photograph taken 10 September 2016. Figure 3: Catholic Cemeteries and Crematoria 2013, Natural Burial, accessed 2 September 2016,< http://www.sydneynaturalburialparks.com.au/natural- burial.html>