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