This article was downloaded by: [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok]

On: 09 August 2013, At: 00:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer
Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning Association

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Planning for the Disposal of the Dead

a b
Carlton Basmajian & Christopher Coutts
a
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Iowa State University
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University
Published online: 24 May 2010.

To cite this article: Carlton Basmajian & Christopher Coutts (2010) Planning for the Disposal of the Dead, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 76:3, 305-317, DOI: 10.1080/01944361003791913

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944361003791913

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor
and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 305
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
Problem: Concurrent with the dramatic
increase in the nation's elderly population
expected in coming decades will be a need to
dispose of larger numbers of our dead. This
issue has religious, cultural, and economic
salience, but is not typically considered a
planning problem. Although cremation rates
are rising, burial is projected to remain the
preferred alternative for the majority of the
U.S. population, and urban space for
cemeteries is limited in many communities.
Purpose: We outline issues related to
cemeteries and burial, describe a number of
alternatives to traditional cemeteries, and
explain how planners might usefully
contribute.
Methods: This work is based on a litera-
ture review.
Results and conclusions: Alternatives
to the cemetery are emerging, but remain
limited. Some require changes to laws or
public perceptions. Planning practice could
be advanced by case studies showing how to
integrate burial grounds into existing
communities and how to alter public policy
to permit alternatives to burial.
Takeaway for practice: As population
demographics change, environmental
concerns intensify, and demand for urban
space grows, future land use decisions will
have to balance a diverse set of social,
cultural, and environmental expectations,
including taking into account burial prac-
tices. There are only a handful of alternatives
to traditional burial in a cemetery: burial in a
multiple-use cemetery; natural burial;
entombment in a mausoleum; cremation,
305
Planning for the Disposal
of the Dead
Carlton Basmajian and Christopher Coutts
T
he certainty of our mortality guarantees the need for ways to dispose
of our mortal remains. In the United States, death historically has
been followed by burial, but since the late 1960s other methods of
disposing of the dead have become more common (Prothero, 2001; Rugg,
2000). The aging of the baby boomer generation portends a dramatic increase
in the elderly population in the coming years, which will inevitably increase
demand for cemetery space (Smith, 1996). Yet, the ethnic and religious diver-
sity of the baby boomer generation will also demand a range of other after-
death treatments. In any case, the future landscapes of the dead are unlikely to
resemble the sprawling, park-like burial grounds prevalent during the better
part of the 20th century (Harris, 2007).
What is done with human remains after death in the United States is
largely governed by religion and culture, with little input from government.
One effect of the lack of government oversight is the absence of detailed and
coordinated information about how and where Americans are buried or other-
wise disposed of after death. The demographics of the departed are difficult to
with the ashes preserved in a columbarium Urban and Regional Planning at Iowa State
or scattered elsewhere; and burial in a grave University. His research focuses on the
that will be reused in the future. This article historical relationship between regional
provides planners with information about planning and urban decentralization.
each of these alternatives, examples of how Christopher Coutts (ccoutts@fsu.edu) is an
the planning process can address disposal of assistant professor in the Department of
the dead, suggestions for avoiding environ- Urban and Regional Planning at Florida
mental externalities, and ideas for better State University. His research focuses on the
integrating the landscapes of death into relationship between planning choices and
community life. human health outcomes, specifically the
Keywords: cemeteries, planning, land use, effect of ecologically sensitive land use
burial, death practices on community health.
Research support: None
Journal of the American Planning Association,
About the authors: Vol. 76, No. 3, Summer 2010
Carlton Basmajian (carlton@iastate.edu) is DOI 10.1080/01944361003791913
an assistant professor in the Department of © American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 306
306 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2010, Vol. 76, No. 3
obtain, and estimates of the dimensions of this problem are
largely absent from the planning and geography literatures
(Price, 1966; Zelinsky, 1994) although death and burial
are important issues for planners (American Society of
Planning Officials, 1950; Whyte, 1968).
Although individual spaces created by after-death
rituals vary widely, burial grounds can be sorted into
typologies based on age, location, and ownership (Jackson
& Vegara, 1996; Rugg, 2000; Sloane, 1991; Walter,
2005). Most cemeteries are privately owned, but occupy
substantial community space (Pattison, 1955). Due to
their function and extent, cemeteries pose public issues.
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
First, their sensitive contents make burial grounds essen-
tially permanent, unlike most other land uses; second,
when expanded or constructed, burial facilities are often
perceived as nuisances; third, burial and cremation produce
both positive and negative environmental externalities;
fourth, greater expected numbers of deaths in coming
decades will make it more difficult for communities to
accommodate human remains, especially if they require
burial. For these reasons, planners will have a hand in
allocating and managing the space needed for the growing
variety of options for disposing of human remains. The
purpose of this article is to outline and explore the key
demographic, environmental, and land use issues that
planners are likely to face and that planning researchers
should consider.1 As cities of the living are planned, so
must cities of the dead be.
The Understudied Geography of Death
At the beginning of The City in History, Lewis Mumford
(1961) notes that “soon after one picks up man’s trail in the
earliest campfire or chipped stone tool one finds evidence of
interests and anxieties that have no animal counterpart; in
particular, a ceremonious concern for the dead, manifested in
their deliberate burial” (pp. 6–7). The cultural and historical
dimensions of death and burial have since been well studied,
particularly in Western Europe2 and the United States (Aries,
1981; Bloch & Parry, 1982; Laderman, 1999; Sanders,
2008). Not so the geography of death.
In the two centuries between the first Europeans’
arrival in North America and the early 1800s, American
cemeteries tended to be small and informal. Although
townships, counties, and cities usually maintained potters’
fields, or places designated for burial of the indigent, most
cemeteries were maintained by church congregations and
families (Sloane, 1991). But, beginning in the mid-19th
century, a series of design and management innovations
permanently transformed American burial grounds.
In 1831, the structure of cemeteries in the United
States underwent its first major change when Mt. Auburn
Cemetery opened on the outskirts of Boston, MA (Bender,
1974; Linden-Ward, 1989). The formal, picturesque
design of Mt. Auburn sparked a boom in the development
of rural cemeteries on the fringes of cities across the coun-
try and ultimately proved to be a major influence on the
design of urban parks and suburbs (Bender, 1974; Jackson
& Vergara, 1996; Schuyler, 1986; Sloane, 1991). Later in
the 19th century, the structure of cemeteries changed for
the second time. In the late 1850s, Adolph Strauch trans-
formed Spring Grove Cemetery in Cincinnati, OH, into a
park-like pastoral lawn by restricting the placement of large
monument-style gravestones to create an open, unob-
structed view of the rolling landscape, a move that also
made maintenance easier and cheaper (Sloane, 1991). In
1913, Hubert Eaton opened Forest Lawn Memorial Park
in Glendale, CA, marking the third major change. Forest
Lawn was the first modern memorial park, marrying effi-
ciency and profit to a highly commercialized expression of
sentiment (McNamara, 2002; Sloane, 1991).
Using aggressive sales techniques, subsequent propri-
etors of both the cemeteries modeled on Spring Grove and
the memorial parks resembling Forest Lawn learned to
generate markets for their products and to satisfy the
demands of the emerging urban middle class for burial
space that matched their worldly aspirations (McNamara,
2002; Rugg, 2006; Sloane, 1991; Yalom & Yalom, 2008).
The 20th-century for-profit cemetery owners thrived on
self-promotion and restrictiveness, and often combined
religion, business acumen, and elaborate decoration
(Llewellyn, 1998; Walter, 2005). By the middle of the
20th century, burial in the United States had become a
specialized (and satirized) part of a larger industry of death,
employing modern marketing to attract buyers, adopting
new technology to streamline operations, developing
economies of scale, and forming industry trade groups to
promote the interests of cemetery owners in the political
arena (Bowman, 1959; Mitford, 1963; Sanders, 2008;
Sloane, 1991; Walter, 2005; Waugh, 1948).
In delimiting modern burial practices, researchers have
debated what defines a cemetery (Curl, 1999; Rugg, 2000),
explored the history of cemetery and monument design
(Jackson & Vergara, 1996; Sloane, 1991), and examined
the rise of cremation (Prothero, 2001). But, in spite of the
recognized importance of death and burial as social, cul-
tural, and economic phenomena, the urban spatial issues
associated with cemeteries have been understudied (Capels
& Senville, 2006; Francaviglia, 1971; Pattison, 1955;
Rugg, 2006). As Zelinsky (1994) noted, the few existing
studies of cemetery geography have usually been limited to
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 307
Basmajian and Coutts: Planning for the Disposal of the Dead
considerations of burial conditions in “specific localities or
at best subnational regions” (p. 30) of which Pattison’s
(1955) study of Chicago cemeteries stands as perhaps the
best example. More recent examples are scarce (Harvey,
2006). Planners have been conspicuously silent on the
issue.
With approximately 2.5 million Americans dying
every year (Kung, Hoyert, Xu, & Murphy, 2008) and the
demographic bubble of baby boomers moving into higher-
mortality age cohorts over the next three decades, the
nation will be forced to confront a significantly greater
need for space in which to inter its dead (Frey, 2007). The
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
death industry may be planning for this inevitability, but
with the growth of land use regulations over the last four
decades, it will also fall to states and municipalities to
decide where their deceased should be placed.
Although there is little scholarly, or even popular,
literature focused on the issue of planning for disposal of
the dead, the problem is potentially severe. The cultural
aversion toward publicly discussing death and burial in-
hibits conversations about whether cemeteries and burial
grounds could be used to serve other important ecological
and social functions. Yet, unlike many of the things we
plan for, mortality is a certainty and the disposal of the
dead is an unavoidable task.
Planning future interment space presents an odd assort-
ment of challenges. There exists almost no standardized
information to guide planners in understanding the dimen-
sions of future demand for cemetery space.3 While models
exist for projecting a variety of dimensions of community
development, no recent source provides clear information
about how mortality will impact land use, or how to project
demands for burial space (American Society of Planning
Officials, 1950; Nelson, 2004). The environmental impacts
of managing such space, while long conjectured, are just
beginning to be taken seriously, and indeed may turn out to
be significant (Dent, Forbes, & Stuart, 2004; Prothero,
2001; Spongberg & Becks, 2000; Trick, Klinck, Coombs,
Noy, & Williams, 2005). Existing cemeteries frequently
possess local historical and cultural significance worth pre-
serving, but properly maintaining those grounds can saddle
private owners and municipal governments with substantial
expenses (Brown, 2008; Capels & Senville, 2006; Meierding,
1993). While the graves of notable citizens could become
tourism attractions, even the less notable occupy an emo-
tional landscape most communities consider important
enough to maintain. Yet, proposals for new or expanded
cemeteries often face community resistance, especially from
potential neighbors who recoil at the idea of living next to a
burial site (Lewis, 2001; Nurse, 2001).
307
Demographics, Burial Space,
and Place
As the generations born just before and during World
War II (1936–1945) and the post-war baby boom
(1946–1964) age, a surge in demand for burial space
appears imminent, even assuming that cremation rates
continue to rise. The combined size of these generations,
and the sheer number of deaths soon to occur, will likely
overwhelm existing interment capacity in the absence of
careful planning. Other alternatives will accommodate
some of the increased demand without a dramatic increase
in space, particularly in some states and regions (as dis-
cussed later), but many will continue to expect embalmed
burial and spacious plots on cemetery lawns (Kellaher,
Pendergast, & Hockney, 2005; Prothero, 2001). In some
cases, planners may meet these challenges by encouraging
cemeteries to also serve the living. Indeed, careful planning
may help cemeteries satisfy competing demands for space,
environmental preservation, and economic development.
Historically, mortality and fertility have followed a
distinct pattern: As mortality rates rose, fertility rates did
as well; when mortality began to decline, fertility followed
(R. Lee, 2003; Zelinsky, 1971). But, in the two decades
immediately following World War II, the United States
experienced a momentary hiccup in this historic relation-
ship. Fertility jumped dramatically, while mortality fell
precipitously. This produced a generation (the baby
boomers) considerably larger than any preceding it
(Easterlin, Schaeffer, & Macunovich, 1993). Advances in
life expectancy and survival among the huge baby boomer
generation, coupled with the improved survival of the
generation preceding World War II, has produced and will
produce a large population of elders and points to a sub-
stantial increase in the total number of deaths over the next
30 years (Frey, 2007; Grow, 2003; C. Lee, 2006; Smith,
1996).
In the art of population forecasting, calculating a
reasonable measure of how many deaths are likely to occur
in a specific town or county is challenging because of
population mobility (Zelinsky, 1971). In general, the
likelihood of an individual making a residential move
varies over the life course. Moving rates tend to go up and
down between ages 5 and 64, peaking between ages 18 and
30. Past age 65, as individuals leave the labor force, mobil-
ity rates usually drop, but recent surveys have shown that
20% of individuals aged 65 and over report having moved
within a five-year period (He & Schachter, 2003). Such
sustained levels of population movement have made it
difficult to predict mortality for small areas and the associ-
ated capacity needed to accommodate human remains.
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 308
308 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2010, Vol. 76, No. 3
Gains in life expectancy and quality of life may further
change late-life mobility patterns. A few demographers and
planners have begun to argue that just over the horizon lies
a huge new demand for communities more amenable to
age diversity, communities that will enable people to live
and age and die in one place that meets all their needs
(Frey, 2007; Frey, Berube, Singer, & Wilson, 2009). This
would make forecasting mortality for small areas clearer,
since, if people die in the same places they lived during
their productive years, the geography of burial should
simply reflect the geography of life. Yet, unforeseen factors
may make this expectation incorrect (Frey et al., 2009),
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
and the practical task of figuring out where to expand or
build cemeteries remains quite difficult (Capels & Senville,
2006; Smith, 1996). Complicating the picture further,
families leaving shrinking cities like Detroit have even
begun to reinter their dead in their new locations
(Clickondetroit.com, 2009).
Setting these concerns aside, we can calculate a rudi-
mentary example of the amount of land needed for conven-
tional burial of the dead as follows. Considering an average
cemetery plot size of 4 by 12 feet and accounting neither
for space between plots nor the area devoted to roads, trees,
or other landscape features, a total of 907 plots can be
squeezed into an acre. If the over 76 million baby boomers
who will reach the average life expectancy of 78 years
between 2024 and 2042 were interred in traditional burial
plots, this would require approximately 130 square miles.
Estimates suggest that by 2025 somewhere between
43% and 51% of all bodies will be cremated (Cremation
Association of North America, 2005; National Funeral
Directors Association, 2005), although cremation rates
vary by region, as discussed later. The high end of the
range would reduce the land area needed for burial to
64 square miles. Although this seems more manageable,
these deaths are almost certain to occur disproportionately
in urban areas where most people live (and die) and where
space for burial is most limited. Taking into consideration
that roads and natural features take up 25% of the areas of
cemeteries (American Society of Planning Officials, 1950,
p. 13), the projected national need would rise to 80 square
miles. And we do not know how much space is currently
available in U.S. cemeteries.
Existing Regulations and Examples
From Practice
While the days of haphazard church graveyards and
potters’ fields are gone, the rules and regulations governing
burial remain fragmented between cities, regions, states,
and the federal government. The regulation of cemetery
development and burial practices that most directly affects
land use remains decentralized. In most places, cemetery
owners retain considerable latitude in how they plan,
build, and operate their burial grounds.
Not surprisingly, states display wide variability in
the focus and breadth of their regulations. More surpris-
ing is the lack of detail in local government regulations.
Depending on the state, cemetery statutes may regulate
the kinds of corollary services cemetery owners can
provide, the structure of long-term endowment care
trusts, and the size, depth, and materials of graves and
urns (Harrington & Krynski, 2002; Iowa Cemetery Act,
2005; Llewellyn, 1998; Sloane, 1991). Local govern-
ments, however, tend to rely on a rather basic approach,
simply describing the zoning categories in which ceme-
teries can be built and specifying minimum lot sizes and
setbacks.
Local Government
Local governments are the gatekeepers of the zoning
process, the public power that most directly influences the
location of burial facilities. Cities, counties, towns, and
villages vary in how they use zoning to regulate cemeteries.
Burial grounds are considered conditional uses in most
cases, and conditional uses are generally approved or
rejected by governing councils based on perceived compati-
bility with the surrounding area (Mandelker, 1997). Some
jurisdictions strictly limit the location of cemeteries, while
others permit them almost everywhere. Regardless of
zoning, cemeteries must almost always meet minimum lot
size requirements. This can vary from as little as 2 acres to
10 acres or more. The following examples illustrate the
range of local regulations.
The small college town of Waverly, IA, allows ceme-
teries as conditional uses only in agricultural zones, which
are reserved for activities related to agricultural production
and extremely low-density residential development. Ceme-
teries must be at least 10 acres (City of Waverly, IA, 2007).
This virtually ensures that any new burial grounds will
remain on the urban fringe. Other municipalities allow
cemeteries almost anywhere. Naperville, IL, an affluent
Chicago suburb, permits cemeteries in three low-density
zoning districts as long as they are two acres or larger (City
of Naperville, IL, 2009). Bellevue, WA, an edge-city
suburb of Seattle, permits cemeteries in 21 of its 27 types
of zoning districts. The only part of the city where burial
grounds are absolutely prohibited is downtown, which has
its own special set of development codes (City of Bellevue,
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 309
Basmajian and Coutts: Planning for the Disposal of the Dead
WA, 2003). Baltimore, MD, falls somewhere in the mid-
dle with a code that permits cemeteries in most residen-
tially zoned districts, but not in office or commercially
zoned areas (City of Baltimore, MD, 2009).
Local regulation of crematoria (furnaces for incinerat-
ing human remains), columbaria (repositories for cremated
human remains), and mausolea (large tombs or buildings
containing tombs) tends to follow that of cemeteries. In
Baltimore, MD, crematoria, columbaria, and mausolea are
considered accessory uses within cemeteries, but may also
be permitted as separate facilities. While such uses are legal
in the same set of residential districts as cemeteries, the
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
zoning review board determines minimum lot size and
front-, back-, and sideyard setbacks on a case-by-case basis
for freestanding crematoria and mausolea (City of
Baltimore, MD, 2009). Bellevue, WA, regulates crematoria
more strictly than cemeteries. Like funeral homes, crema-
toria are conditionally permitted only in districts zoned for
office use; mausolea receive no mention in the city’s code.
Waverly, IA, on the other hand, includes no provisions for
crematoria, mausolea, or columbaria and, in fact, makes no
mention of alternatives to burial anywhere in the city
ordinance.
State Government
Most states have laws concerning the operation of
cemeteries, but some are comprehensive, while others
regulate only a few essentials, most frequently the long-
term financial stability of cemetery corporations and the
qualifications of cemetery and crematory operators.
Iowa has a long tradition of public ownership of
cemeteries and a cemetery act that is one of the nation’s
more comprehensive, sharply limiting the authority of
local governments and cemetery operators. The Iowa
Cemetery Act (2005) regulates a wide range of burial
details, including the size of new cemetery spaces, the
quality and type of materials that can be used in under-
ground crypts, and how internal cemetery space should be
subdivided. It also stipulates rules for investigations of
violations of the act, requirements for disclosure in the sale
of interment rights, and requirements for establishing
perpetual care trusts (Iowa Cemetery Act, 2005). Cremato-
ria, columbaria, and mausolea are included in the act and
regulated by the same set of guidelines as cemeteries.
Cemetery regulations in California are split among
several different state regulatory codes. The California
Code of Regulations (2009) stipulates the composition and
responsibilities of the state cemetery board, as well as
licensing requirements for operators, fines for rules viola-
tions, and annual endowment care reports. The California
Health and Safety Code (2009) also regulates certain
309
cemetery functions, including rules for disinterment,
requirements for burial, and the rights of plot owners.
California’s Business and Professions Code (2009) includes
rules for cemetery owners and managers. While the state’s
regulation of cemeteries is fragmented, the thrust of Cali-
fornia’s interest lies in regulating operations, not physical
space. Planning and construction details are left to local
governments or, more frequently, to cemetery operators
themselves (California Health and Safety Code, 2009).
This is also evidenced in Chapter 497 of the Florida
Statutes (Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services,
2009). Florida has extensive regulations dealing with the
licensure and rules of operation for the death care industry
but little policy covering the physical details of cemetery
planning and management. Local governments and an
assortment of religious, nonprofit, and family columbaria,
mausolea, and cemeteries (most between two and five
acres) are left to create and manage spaces to handle the
dead.
Federal Government
Historically, federal regulation of cemeteries has been
limited. Aside from federal ownership of veteran’s cemeter-
ies, it was not until the late-20th century that federal
legislation addressing mortuaries and burial practices was
adopted. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) originally
introduced the Federal Funeral Industry Practices Trade
Regulation Rule (1984) to protect consumers from fraudu-
lent behavior on the part of funeral industry representatives
and cemetery agents. The rule requires “funeral directors to
give you itemized prices...and also requires funeral direc-
tors to give you other information about their goods and
services” (FTC, 2000, p. 5) to allow price comparison. The
rule also prohibits funeral service providers from misrepre-
senting legal requirements for cremation or interment and
from requiring the purchase of one service as a precondi-
tion for receiving another service (FTC, 2000). The FTC
has made minor revisions to the rule only once, in 1994,
and it remains focused on disclosure of funeral services and
pricing. No other federal agencies regulate cemeteries.
Current Methods of Sending Off
the Dead
Traditional Burial in Cemeteries
In 2007, 70% of deaths in the United States used
caskets and were accompanied by some type of ritual or
ceremony (National Funeral Directors Association, 2007).
Zelinsky (1994) estimated the number of known, named
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 310

310 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2010, Vol. 76, No. 3

cemeteries in the United States at more than 100,000, Table 1. Cremations as percentage of deaths by state and region, 2005.
although they were unevenly distributed, with 31 in
Hawaii and over 12,000 in Tennessee. Census
region Cremations Deaths %
Named cemeteries vary considerably in size. The
largest federally owned cemetery is Arlington National Mississippi South 2,806 29,257 9.6
Cemetery in northern Virginia, which covers over Alabama South 4,679 48,106 9.7
600 acres and contains 300,000 graves. Large private North Dakota Midwest 632 6,143 10.3
cemeteries include Spring Grove in Cincinnati, OH Tennessee South 5,998 57,129 10.5
(730 acres), Rose Hills in Whittier, CA (1,500 acres), Kentucky South 4,880 40,386 12.1
Green-Wood in Brooklyn, NY (478 acres and 560,000 Louisiana South 6,346 42,012 15.1
graves), and Forest Lawn in Glendale, CA (300 acres and South Carolina South 6,386 37,167 17.2
New Jersey Northeast 12,868 71,955 17.9
over 250,000 graves). Smaller private and municipal ceme-
Arkansas Midwest 5,457 27,654 19.7
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013

teries covering 5–100 acres are far more common. Oklahoma South 7,257 36,278 20.0
Other abandoned, unnamed, or forgotten cemeteries West Virginia South 4,318 20,649 20.9
sometimes come to light when threatened by development Georgia South 13,794 65,683 21.0
(Copeland, 2000). Although their numbers are unknown, Iowa Midwest 5,908 27,875 21.2
it is reasonable to assume that these are primarily small Indiana Midwest 11,925 54,874 21.7
family graveyards, potters’ fields, and church yards Utah West 2,946 13,356 22.1
(Paumgarten, 2009). South Dakota Midwest 1,555 7,042 22.1
North Carolina South 16,715 74,693 22.4
Texas South 35,001 154,994 22.6
Cremation and Columbaria Missouri Midwest 12,746 54,692 23.3
The most common alternative to embalmed interment New York Northeast 36,841 154,147 23.9
for disposing of human remains is cremation (Prothero, Kansas Midwest 6,280 24,774 25.4
2001). Although it is an ancient practice, it has been Ohio Midwest 27,414 108,088 25.4
controversial in the United States, where it emerged only Illinois Midwest 26,162 102,922 25.4
in the 19th century (Davies, 1996; Prothero, 2001; Sloan, Virginia South 15,057 57,715 26.1
1991; Walter, 2005). As recently as the 1950s, only Nebraska Midwest 3,980 14,882 26.7
Massachusetts Northeast 14,448 53,447 27.0
around 4% of Americans chose cremation over burial
Pennsylvania Northeast 34,830 128,401 27.1
(American Society of Planning Officials, 1950), but it Maryland South 12,662 44,044 28.8
began to gain popularity in the 1960s (Sanders, 2008), and Delaware South 2,279 7,675 29.7
rose to 15% of deaths by 1990, 25% by 2000, and is Rhode Island Northeast 3,022 10,177 29.7
projected to rise to 36% in 2010 and 43–51% by 2025 Wisconsin Midwest 15,944 46,699 34.1
(Cremation Association of North America, 2005; National Connecticut Northeast 10,240 29,515 34.7
Funeral Directors Association, 2005). Table 1 shows that Michigan Midwest 32,158 86,933 37.0
rates of cremation vary by state and region, with rates in Minnesota Midwest 14,38 37,594 38.3
Vermont Northeast 1,886 4,889 38.6
the West being by far highest.
Dist. of Columbia South 2,454 5,391 45.5
Within states, race, ethnicity, and religion play roles. Wyoming West 1,863 4,062 45.9
In a survey commissioned by the Funeral and Memorial New Mexico West 6,767 14,722 46.0
Information Council,4 about 40% of Hispanics and Idaho West 4,910 10,665 46.0
Whites claimed they would choose cremation, while Afri- Florida South 82,004 170,050 48.2
can Americans and those of the Baptist faith were far less New Hampshire Northeast 5,187 9,985 52.0
inclined to do so; of those choosing cremation, 24% California West 120,883 232,211 52.1
planned to place the remains in a cemetery, with the Maine Northeast 6,844 12,806 53.4
Colorado West 16,486 29,563 55.8
remaining 76% likely occupying no spatial footprint
Alaska West 1,764 3,058 57.7
(Cremation Association of North America, 2005). From a Montana West 5,050 8,554 59.0
sustainability perspective, cremated remains occupy very Arizona West 26,603 44,562 59.7
little space even if buried. Crematories consume energy Oregon West 19,667 31,120 63.2
and release air pollutants, but these aspects have hardly Hawaii West 5,961 9,329 63.9
been studied (Hylander & Goodsite, 2006; Santarsiero, Washington West 29,412 45,951 64.0
Cutilli, Cappiello, & Minelli, 2000). Nevada West 12,815 19,692 65.1
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 311
Basmajian and Coutts: Planning for the Disposal of the Dead
Table 1. (continued).
Census
region Cremations Deaths
Regional totals Midwest 150,161 600,172
Northeast 126,166 475,322
South 222,636 891,229
West 255,127 466,845
Source: National Funeral Directors Association (2005).
Mausolea
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
Densifying by building up rather than out also applies
to disposal of the dead. Briefly popular in the United
States in the mid-19th century, mausolea were added to
existing cemeteries in the 1950s, offering a simpler, less-
expensive, and more compact form of embalmed burial
than dug graves, as well as one that blended into both
park-like and memorial park cemeteries (Sloane, 1991). In
places where cremation remains unpopular for religious or
cultural reasons, mausolea have provided needed high-
density burial space, significantly reducing the amount of
land necessary for interment. They can create extra capac-
ity in existing cemeteries and reduce the amount of land
needed for new cemeteries (Keister, 1997). Green-Wood
Cemetery in Brooklyn, NY, one of the nation’s oldest
burial grounds, faced dwindling space. A recently
completed mausoleum and columbarium has added nearly
5,200 burial spaces and 8,000 niches for cremated remains,
potentially extending the cemetery’s life for another
quarter century (Dunlap, 2002).
Counts of existing cemeteries do not generally include
separate mausolea, nor do projections of future demand
for burial space mention how much demand they will
meet. It appears from state regulations that most mausolea
are located in existing cemeteries, although it is not
known what share of burial spaces they provide or how
much they might be able to expand existing cemeteries’
stated capacities.
Emerging Methods of Sending Off
the Dead
In addition to cemeteries, mausolea, and columbaria, a
variety of other alternatives have begun to emerge. Even
without intervention, the park-like cemetery that has
dominated burial since the middle of the 19th century may
be on the retreat as changing demographics and environ-
mental concerns modify after-death practices.
311
Decentralized Burial
One potential change may be the return to more
fragmented cultural, religious, and ethnic burial sites,
%
reminiscent of the 19th century (Meyer, 1993). Different
25.0 groups have often been separated within large cemeteries
26.5 and segregated in smaller cemeteries, and this practice may
25.0 increase again (Sloane, 1991). Some expect the baby
54.7 boomer generation to diversify burial styles (Meyer, 1993),
and the end-of-life requirements of intersecting religions
and cultures should also have this effect. Where they have
room to expand, large cemeteries in urban areas are re-
sponding by dedicating separate spaces to particular
groups. In smaller places, or where existing cemetery
expansion is limited, groups are developing their own
burial spaces, reflecting the social, economic, and ethnic
diversity of the living U.S. population (Nurse, 2001).
Green Burial
A second major social change affecting burial is the
growing awareness of its environmental consequences
(Harris, 2007). After-death practices are beginning to
reflect more understanding of the relationship of humans
to the earth (Mooallem, 2009; Rugg, 2000). Although
many people choose cremation to save money, it may be
noteworthy to planners that 13% of persons say that
“saving land” is the reason they would choose cremation
(Cremation Association of North America, 2005).
One emerging trend is to follow a 24-hour wake with
burial in a simple wooden box in a hand-dug hole in
unmarked ground (Friend, 2005; Harris, 2007;
Paumgarten, 2005). This approach eschews the use of
toxic flesh preservatives, ornate caskets, and concrete
vaults. Advocating this approach, the Green Burial Coun-
cil (2009) suggests using “the burial process as a means of
facilitating the acquisition, restoration and stewardship of
natural areas.” This is essential because unembalmed
burials assume more space than permitted by the grave
densities in most cemeteries. While this approach does not
conserve burial space, it can be part of a community
strategy to “use revenues from green burials” (Friend,
2005, p. 50) to permanently preserve valuable natural
areas (Harris, 2007). Green cremation can benefit the
living in similar fashion. The Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department created a partnership with the Green Burial
Council to allow cremated remains to be scattered in state
parks for a fee. The proceeds from these burials will be
used to acquire land for state park expansions (Streit,
2009). Yet, green burial grounds are not without contro-
versy (Kim, Hall, Hart, & Pollard, 2008). A recent
attempt to rezone a vacant land parcel to build a natural
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 312
312 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2010, Vol. 76, No. 3
burial cemetery in Macon, GA, was defeated after
widespread community protest (Shiskin, 2009).
Mausolea and Columbaria
In places where space for cemetery expansion or new
cemetery construction is limited, community or garden
mausolea (ranging from monuments for individual families
to 30,000-crypt complexes) have begun to emerge as
alternatives or additions to existing cemeteries (Mangali-
man, 1997). Community mausolea are often less expensive
and occupy far less space than standard cemetery plots
while providing a similar burials and visible community
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
memorials. Such high-density structures could significantly
expand the capacity of existing cemeteries (Davies, 1996).
Columbaria serve as repositories for cremated remains
as well as simple memorials and can provide space for
thousands of individuals. They occupy even less space than
mausolea and have appeared in cemeteries around the
country, particularly in the Western United States and in
large urban areas. In places like Hong Kong, where land is
extremely limited and cremation rates are very high, dense
columbaria are the norm rather than the exception
(Teather, 1998, 1999). Moreover, cemeteries are also
beginning to include scattering gardens (natural landscapes
that can be used for scattering ashes), forests for injecting
remains into tree root systems, or even artificial underwater
reef structures into which ashes can be implanted (Marr,
2007; Streit, 2009).
Grave Sharing
Building on an old European practice of renting burial
space, Australian cemeteries have begun to establish 50-
year license agreements. After this, the original human
remains are buried more deeply and the space close to the
surface is reused (Sterba, 2006). Thus, multiple people
may be buried on top of one another with a few feet of
earth between. However, this practice is not widely popu-
lar. In the City of London, UK, where interring large
numbers of dead in a small area has been a problem for a
thousand years (Walter, 2005), grave sharing has still
encountered resistance (Lawless, 2009), and it is unlikely
to soon be widely accepted in the United States.
Multi-Use Cemeteries
Even traditional cemeteries may be incorporated into
community life in creative ways. In the early 19th century,
Mt. Auburn Cemetery in Boston, MA, combined memo-
rial and recreational space. In the future, cemeteries could
be redesigned to accommodate different uses (Linden-
Ward, 1989). In communities where recreational space is
limited, cemeteries can provide space for low-impact
activities like walking and running (Anderson & West,
2006), as most already have the necessary infrastructure.
Harnik (2010) proposes using cemeteries to add park-
land in crowded cities (Eckdish-Knack, 2009). Extant ceme-
teries offer opportunities for cities to sidestep many of the
obstacles to adding permanent open space and expand natu-
ral infrastructure without land acquisition. Baltimore, MD,
allows rezoning existing public and private cemeteries of any
design into a floating special district intended to “perma-
nently preserv[e] open space as an important public asset”
(City of Baltimore, MD, 2009). Baltimore does not require
special permits or extra steps beyond standard nonconform-
ing use applications and, thus, encourages cemetery owners
to make their properties part of the public sphere (Interna-
tional Cemetery Cremation and Funeral Association, 1998).
Cemeteries might also serve as community gathering
places. In Hollywood, CA, the nonprofit group Cinespia
sponsors screenings of mid-century American films amid
the lush grounds of the Hollywood Forever Cemetery
(Cathcart, 2008; Duertson, 2002). Some newer cemeteries
could accommodate high-speed recreational activities like
bicycling, which require significant space; but this is less
likely in older cemeteries, particularly those that are rela-
tively dense. The Grand Rapids, MI, zoning ordinance
prohibits bicycles, but allows lower-impact recreational
activities like walking or running in the city’s cemeteries
(City of Grand Rapids, MI, 2003).
How Planners Can Contribute
Land use and zoning regulations give local govern-
ment considerable influence over where new cemeteries
are built and how existing cemeteries expand, but the
factors that influence cemetery management and planning
are complex. As cultural landscapes, cemeteries touch
deeply held beliefs and emotions (Llewellyn, 1998). Most
cemeteries in the United States are owned and managed
by private entities (Habenstein & Lamers, 1963; Sloane,
1991). As institutions with a decidedly public function,
cemeteries interact with a range of interest groups: owners,
managers, undertakers, religious congregations, planners,
politicians, plot owners, and the public. All are concerned
about where new cemeteries will be located, how they will
be designed, and how expansions will be handled, mean-
ing planners dealing with burial issues face a challenging
environment (Harrington & Krynski, 2002). Yet, there
are no case studies that detail the process of planning,
building, or expanding a cemetery, leaving planners en-
gaged in such a process without much guidance or even
good information.
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 313
Basmajian and Coutts: Planning for the Disposal of the Dead
However, planners have several ways to help their
communities move forward. They can use comprehensive
land use plans, zoning ordinances, and environmental
regulation to encourage communities to reduce overall
consumption of land and improve the way community
burial space is managed. They can also use public partici-
pation and intergovernmental coordination to encourage a
broader perspective on how to efficiently manage existing
cemetery space and decide cooperatively where future
deaths will be accommodated.
Land Use Plans
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
While the majority of cemeteries are privately built,
owned, and operated, they serve an essentially public
function and, therefore, occupy important space in
community geography, although they are rarely consid-
ered critical land uses (Harvey, 2006; Pattison, 1955).
The task of negotiating the planning of a new cemetery
or expanding an existing cemetery, whether private or
public, falls in part to community planners and
municipal administrators.
Although cataloging the location of cemeteries has
been made easier with GIS and the widespread availability
of digital geospatial data, fragmented ownership patterns,
lack of accessible data, and frequent abandonment makes
cataloging details about cemeteries’ relationships to munic-
ipal land use plans extremely challenging (Zelinsky, 1994).
At present, lacking data about existing cemetery popula-
tions, available space, and projected demand, planners are
almost entirely dependent on proprietary data published by
cemetery owners and cemetery industry associations
(Llewellyn, 1998). Few communities include cemeteries or
burial facilities in the text of their comprehensive plans. In
only one of the places we examined (Waverly, IA) did the
plan even mention that the town has a cemetery, and then
just in one sentence noting that 7 of the cemetery’s 40
acres remain undeveloped (City of Waverly, IA, 2005, p.
24). Instead of addressing cemetery expansion in land use
plans, localities sometimes conduct capacity studies
(Baracco and Associates, 2008; City of Santa Monica, CA,
2009), although we found few such examples, and they did
not address the relationship to local land use.
While plans cannot solve all problems, including
cemeteries in discussions of community land use offers an
excellent starting point for introducing the issue of plan-
ning for the dead. Planners can prepare future burial-need
scenarios based on the age structure of the community and
the projected number of deaths and develop alternatives
for addressing them in the land use plan based on existing
burial space, state regulations governing burial facilities,
and potential locations for future burial facilities.
313
Zoning
Zoning ordinances are how local governments most
often regulate the location of burial facilities. Without
challenging the fundamental structure of a city code,
planners could advocate for changes in zoning ordinances
to reduce minimum lot sizes, change buffer requirements,
or allow burial facilities in more districts. Thoughtfully
designed small community burial grounds could provide
valuable green spaces. Even simple changes like expanding
the hours of operation or requiring gates to be open could
encourage greater public use of existing cemeteries. If it
were acceptable to the community, planners could adjust
zoning ordinances to allow the scattering of cremation
ashes on specified public lands.
Public Participation
The public perceives a cemetery as both blessing and
curse. While many established cemeteries blend seamlessly
into the residential landscape and become local amenities,
people often object to proposals to build new cemeteries or
expand existing ones (Llewellyn, 1998). Cemeteries typi-
cally occupy many acres, and can meet the same kind of
resistance as large commercial or residential subdivisions
(Feagans, 2004; Lake, 1993; Lewis, 2001). Yet, existing
cemeteries can also be seen as community resources that
deserve protection.
In some cases, communities may object to burial
grounds because they provide visible reminders of mortal-
ity, may alter the viewshed, and may produce increased
traffic and noise (Capels & Senville, 2006; Sloane, 1991).
In other instances, cemeteries provide valuable open space,
especially in dense urban neighborhoods (Anderson &
West, 2006). Examples abound. In Culver City, CA, the
owners of Hillside Memorial Park proposed adding a large
mausoleum in a section of the cemetery where soil and
topography was incompatible with burial, but “the neigh-
bors were concerned that the new building would block
their beautiful view of Hillside’s park-like setting” (Loving,
2004, p. 7). Alterations to this viewshed were considered by
nearby residents a taking of the aesthetic environment to
which they had grown accustomed (and perhaps for which
they had paid). In Fayette County, GA, a plan to build a
new private cemetery to meet the county’s growing demand
for burial space met with resistance from the public. An
elderly neighbor of the proposed cemetery complained in a
letter to the county commission, “Chances are I won’t live
too many more years, but I’d like to live it without looking
at a cemetery” (Lewis, 2001, p. 1J). Ultimately, the com-
mission sided with the public and denied the developer’s
request to rezone the parcel to permit the cemetery
(“Cemetery Proposal Rejected,” 2001, p. 2H).
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 314
314 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2010, Vol. 76, No. 3
In most instances, planners should approach contro-
versy over a cemetery as a public relations problem. Or-
chestrating public outreach when an expansion or new
burial ground is proposed could help, but introducing the
issue early in the community planning process and allow-
ing community members a voice in deciding where future
interments should be located could build long-term com-
munity support and head off conflict before it starts.
Intergovernmental Coordination
The regional land market influences the location of
cemeteries. Although it might be ideal for memorials to be
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
located near the population served, open land close to
population centers is likely to be worth more to residential
or commercial developers than to cemetery owners
(Harrington & Krynski, 2002; Teather, 1998; Zelinsky,
1994). And, although existing cemeteries were once located
on the urban outskirts, most have since been hemmed in by
development, limiting opportunities for adjacent expan-
sions (Capels & Senville, 2006). State regulations governing
grave density, along with local zoning requirements for
buffers and minimum lot sizes, can significantly increase the
amount of land needed to build a new cemetery of even
modest capacity (Llewellyn, 1998). The regional land
market and local regulations can make new cemeteries in
developed places expensive even before any dirt is turned.
We suggest reframing death spaces as places that
provide services to the living. Like other planning prob-
lems with spillover effects or significant costs, planners can
work to encourage regional cooperation around burial. For
example, in metropolitan Atlanta, GA, regional coordina-
tion around the needs of a growing elderly population has
become an important planning issue, but burial has not yet
entered the conversation (Shaw, 2009). As with other
elderly support services, planners should help local govern-
ments work together to create regional burial plans that
distribute costs and benefits fairly.
Environmental Regulations
Traditional cemeteries and alternative burial grounds
could potentially improve a community’s natural environ-
ment. At present, many municipalities consider cemeteries
part of their green infrastructure, and in some places
residents use cemeteries for recreation (City of Baltimore,
MD, 2009; Harvey, 2006). Established cemeteries can also
support significant biotic diversity (Barrett & Barrett,
2001). But, like golf courses, cemeteries are not necessarily
advantageous to the natural environmental (Wheeler &
Nauright, 2006). Many use large quantities of chemicals
and petroleum-based fuels to maintain a bucolic appear-
ance. If cemeteries are to be part of municipal green infra-
structure, planners will have to work to mitigate the envi-
ronmental impacts of their upkeep.
The strategies for this resemble existing policies that
regulate tree removal, grading, and protect sensitive land-
scapes. Like other properties, cemeteries are subject to
landscape ordinances, and must maintain stream and
wetland buffers. Planners can use such ordinances as lever-
age to encourage cemetery operators to employ more
environmentally sensitive landscape management tech-
niques, influence how cemeteries are expanded, and ensure
that new burial facilities are developed in an environmen-
tally friendly manner. Burial facilities could even be in-
cluded in regional greenspace or land conservation pro-
grams, which often employ heightened standards to
protect fragile natural resources.
Conclusion
There is nothing more certain than death. As rare as
this type of certainty is to planning, it will not help plan-
ners overcome the inevitable surge in mortality and the
subsequent process of disposing of the dead. Cemeteries
are rarely part of comprehensive plans, revitalization plans,
or community conversations, even though dealing with
human mortality has been an inescapable public function
for a very long time (Mumford, 1961).
As the U.S. population grows older, interring the dead
will almost certainly become a more pressing public issue in
communities of all sizes. In 2010, the oldest members of
the vast baby boomer generation will begin to cross the
retirement threshold and enter the years of highest mortal-
ity. Because of their numbers, whatever disposal methods
the boomers choose will reshape the landscape of burial in
the United States and will almost certainly worsen the
problems of setting aside large amounts of land in perpetu-
ity, perceptions that cemeteries are nuisances, and the
effects of our disposal methods on environmental quality. It
will become increasingly important to set aside permanent
space that sensitively balances sociocultural expectations
with environmental and economic concerns. This will give
local planning new influence on the death care industry.
It will also require significant public negotiation.
Whether modifying existing cemeteries to accommodate
additional uses, adopting policies that encourage alterna-
tives to burial, or something else, when planners help
communities manage the externalities of death they
confront deeply rooted cultural practices, some related to
religious beliefs. Local governments may be reluctant to
challenge, or even discuss, such long-standing and
emotionally charged behaviors. Yet, planners must at some
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 315
Basmajian and Coutts: Planning for the Disposal of the Dead
point begin to bring burial into planning practice. We are
making a start at this, since information about human
burial is rarely mentioned in the planning literature. As we
have noted, there are several ways that planners can make
burial facilities more socially acceptable as well as more
ecologically sensitive. Research and practice should also
explore techniques that will allow disposal of the dead to
help the living by providing public space, protecting the
environment, and contributing to economic development.
We conclude with three suggested areas for future research.
First, it would be very desirable to have detailed case
studies about how to design burial grounds to better inte-
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
grate them into existing communities. Designs that accom-
modate multiple uses and conservation space might bring
burial facilities back into community life and simultane-
ously contribute to a community’s green infrastructure.
Land use plans could direct future cemeteries away from
the community fringe and encourage incorporating burial
facilities into redevelopment or infill projects.
Second, planners would benefit from research that
explored how to permit and encourage alternative methods
of disposal that would reduce or avoid the toxic chemicals,
concrete, and wood used to preserve and entomb a corpse.
Such policies might allow natural or cremated burials in
the same space as embalmed burials. Later, as alternative
practices become more accepted, perhaps the policies could
be modified to restrict land available for embalmed burials
while simultaneously expanding space for natural burials.
Third, while burial is a delicate subject, public out-
reach strategies should emphasize conversation and deliber-
ation. We believe open public planning processes can
resolve problems that emerge when cemeteries are ex-
panded or constructed. Good examples may already exist,
perhaps outside the United States, and research should
search for models of how planners have succeeded both at
integrating different practices within existing burial spaces
and at accommodating new ones in their communities.
Notes
1. Federal cemeteries owned and operated by the Veteran’s Administra-
tion are planned at a scale beyond the influence of local and state
governments (Backhus, 1998). Although we address the role of the
federal government in existing regulations, we have limited our focus to
the private and municipal burial facilities that most planners are likely
to encounter.
2. Currently, the University of York in the United Kingdom houses a
Cemetery Research Group that supports research focusing on cemeter-
ies, burial, and the death industry.
3. Only two Planning Advisory Service (PAS) reports on planning for
the deceased have been published: Cemeteries in the City Plan (American
Society of Planning Officials, 1950), and The Multiple Use of Cemeteries
(American Society of Planning Officials, 1972). The first is still a useful
315
resource, as it outlines the many issues associated with cemeteries such
as eminent domain and perpetuity, and also summarizes the factors that
need to be considered when projecting local needs for cemetery space.
The data are out of date, but the issues and methods are still very
relevant.
4. In conducting the survey, “…Wirthlin Worldwide contacted by
telephone nearly 1,000 adult Americans age 40 and older including an
oversample of African Americans and Hispanics. The sample was
selected to ensure an appropriate state-by-state representation of the
nation’s population, a mixture of urban, suburban, and rural areas,
diverse age and ethnic groups and various religious beliefs, with a 40%
male and 60% female gender distribution because women are known to
be the primary decision-makers regarding remembrance and memorial-
ization.” (Cremation Association of North America, 2005, n.p.)
References
American Society of Planning Officials. (1950). Cemeteries in the city
plan (Planning Advisory Service Report No. 16). Chicago, IL: Author.
American Society of Planning Officials. (1972). The multiple use of
cemeteries (Planning Advisory Service Report No. 285). Chicago, IL:
Author.
Anderson, S., & West, S. (2006). Open space, residential property values,
and spatial context. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36(6), 773–789.
Aries, P. (1981). The hour of our death (H. Weaver, Trans.). New York,
NY: Knopf.
Backhus, S. (1998, April 29). Plans for addressing projected increases in
veterans’ burials. (Testimony before the Subcommittee on Benefits,
Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives).
Baracco and Associates. (2008). Comprehensive study of public cemetery
districts: Municipal service review. Sutter Creek, CA: Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission of Napa County. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from
http://www.napa.lafco.ca.gov/uploads/documents/MSR_CemeteryDistricts.
pdf
Barrett, G., & Barrett, T. (2001). Cemeteries as repositories of natural
and cultural diversity. Conservation Biology, 15(6), 1820–1824.
Bender, T. (1974). The rural cemetery movement: Urban travail and
the appeal of nature. The New England Quarterly, 47(2), 196–211.
Bloch, M., & Parry, J. (Eds.). (1982). Death and the regeneration of life.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bowman, L. (1959). The American funeral: A study in guilt. Washington,
DC: Public Affairs Press.
Brown, R. (2008, October 11). Atlanta saves a battered gem, a home
for the dead that’s prized by the living. The New York Times. Retrieved
November 10, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/
11cemetery.html?scp=2&sq=oakland%20cemetery&st=cse
California Business and Professions Code. Chapter 19, updated to
include 2009 statutes. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.
leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=bpc&codebody=&hits=20
California Code of Regulations. Title 16, Division 23, updated to
include 2009 statutes. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://ccr.
oal.ca.gov/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=CCR-1000&Action=Welcome
California Health and Safety Code. Division 7, §8115, 8300, updated
to include 2009 statutes. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc&
codebody=&hits=20
Capels, V., & Senville, W. (2006). Planning for cemeteries. Planning
Commissioners Journal, 54, 3–10.
Cathcart, R. (2008, June 8). Where Hollywood’s stars are interred, but
live forever on screen. The New York Times. Retrieved on November 5,
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 316
316 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2010, Vol. 76, No. 3
2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/movies/07ceme.
html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=hollywood+stars+are+interred&st=nyt
Cemetery proposal rejected. (2001, February 24). Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, p. 2H.
City of Baltimore, MD. (2009). Zoning code. Retrieved November 8,
2009, from http://cityservices.baltimorecity.gov/charterandcodes/
Code/Art%2000%20-%20Zoning.pdf
City of Bellevue, WA. (2003). Bellevue land use code amendments,
Ordinance, no. 5432. Retrieved on November 8, 2009, from
http://www.bellevuewa.gov/bellcode/blvlucnt.html
City of Grand Rapids, MI. (2003). Cemetery ordinance and rules (Title
3: Chapter 43). Retrieved March 31, 2009, from http://www.grand-
rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/parksandrec_Rules
%20and%20Regulations%202003.pdf
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
City of Naperville, IL. (2009). City code (Chapter 6: Article H).
Retrieved November 6, 2009, from http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/
IL/Naperville/index.htm
City of Santa Monica, CA. (2009, April 28). Memorandum from Lee
Swain, Director of Public Works to Mayor and City Council. Retrieved
November 9, 2009, from http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/
agendas/2009/20090428/s2009042808-B.htm
City of Waverly, IA. (2005). Waverly, Iowa comprehensive land use plan
update. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from http://city.waverlyia.com/
docs/Waverly%20Comprehensive%20Plan%202005.pdf
City of Waverly, IA. (2007). City code (Chapter 100: Zoning).
Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://city.waverlyia.com/city_
ordinances.asp
Clickondetroit.com. (2009). Family moves loved ones’ plots out of Detroit.
Retrieved November 8, 2009, from http://www.clickondetroit.com/
video/21482299/index.html
Copeland, L. (2000, January 17). Groups want cemeteries to rest in
peace: Booming development can put small graveyards at risk, especially
in South. USA Today, p. 3A.
Cremation Association of North America. (2005). Cremation continues
to expand as option Americans prefer. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from
http://www.cremationassociation.org/Media/CANAMediaReleases/
CremationContinuestoExpand/tabid/177/Default.aspx
Curl, J. S. (1999). Oxford dictionary of architecture. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Davies, D. (1996). The sacred crematorium. Mortality, 1(1), 83–94.
Dent, B., Forbes, S., & Stuart, B. (2004). Review of human decomposi-
tion processes in soil. Environmental Geology, 45(4), 576–585.
Duertson, M. (2002, August 1). The cemetery show: What lies
beneath. LA Weekly. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://www.
laweekly.com/2002-08-01/columns/the-cemetery-show-what-lies-
beneath
Dunlap, D. (2002, June 2). For historic cemeteries, new chapters. New
York Times, p. 111.
Easterlin, R., Schaeffer, C., & Macunovich, D. (1993). Will the baby
boomers be less well off than their parents? Income, wealth, and family
circumstances over the life cycle in the United States. Population and
Development Review, 19(3), 497–522.
Eckdish-Knack, R. (2009). Parks in tough times. Planning, 75(9),
22–27.
Feagans, B. (2004, January 24). Muslim cemetery opens: High-profile
site’s dedication set for February. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. JJ1.
Federal Funeral Industry Practices Trade Regulation Rule. 16 CFR §
453 (1984).
Federal Trade Commission. (2000). Funerals: A consumer guide.
Washington DC: Author.
Francaviglia, R. (1971). The cemetery as an evolving cultural landscape.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 61(3), 501–509.
Frey, W. (2007). Mapping the growth of older America: Seniors and
boomers in the early 21st century (Living Cities Census Series).
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Frey, W., Berube, A., Singer, A., & Wilson, J. (2009). Getting current:
Recent demographic trends in metropolitan America. Washington, DC:
Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program.
Friend, T. (2005, August 29). The shroud of Marin: Tyler Cassidy and
the new way of death. The New Yorker, pp. 50–63.
Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services. Florida Statutes, Title 33,
Chapter 497, updated to include 2009 statutes. Retrieved February 28,
2010, from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?
App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0497/titl0497.htm&StatuteYea
r=2009&Title=%2D%3E2009%2D%3EChapter%20497
Green Burial Council. (2009). Natural burial in the U.S.A. Retrieved
November 1, 2009, from http://naturalburial.coop/USA/green-burial-
council/
Grow, B. (2003, March 24). What’s killing the undertakers. Business
Week, p. 16.
Habenstein, R., & Lamers, W. (1963). Funeral customs the world over.
Milwaukee, WI: Bulfin Press.
Harnik, P. (2010). Urban green: Innovative parks for resurgent cities.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Harrington, D., & Krynski, K. (2002). The effect of state funeral
regulations on cremation rates: Testing for demand inducement in
funeral markets. Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), 199–225.
Harris, M. (2007). Grave matters: A journey through the modern funeral
industry to a natural way of burial. New York, NY: Scribner.
Harvey, T. (2006). Sacred spaces, common places: The cemetery in the
contemporary American city. Geographical Review, 96(2), 295–312.
He, W., & Schachter, J. (2003). Internal migration of the older popula-
tion: 1995 to 2000 (Census 2000 special report). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Hylander, L., & Goodsite, M. (2006). Environmental costs of mercury
pollution. Science of the Total Environment, 368(1), 352–370.
International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association. (1998).
Zoning and related construction standards for cemeteries. Retrieved
November 3, 2009, from http://www.iccfa.com/government-legal/model-
guidelines/zoning-and-related-construction-standards-cemeteries
Iowa Cemetery Act. (2005). Chapter 523I updated to include 2008
statutes. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from
http://www.iid.state.ia.us/reg_industries_unit/523i.pdf
Jackson, K., & Vegara, J. (1996). Silent cities: The evolution of the
American cemetery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keister, D. (1997). Going out in style: The architecture of eternity.
New York, NY: Checkmark Books.
Kellaher, L., Prendergast, D., & Hockey, J. (2005). In the shadow of
the traditional grave. Mortality, 10(4), 237–250.
Kim, K., Hall, M., Hart, A., & Pollard, S. (2008). A survey of green
burial sites in England and Wales and an assessment of the feasibility of a
groundwater vulnerability tool. Environmental Technology, 29(1), 1–12.
Kung, H-C., Hoyert, D. L., Xu, J., & Murphy, S. L. (2008). Deaths:
Final data for 2005. National Vital Statistics Reports, 56(10), 1–121.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved March
3, 2009, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
Laderman, G. (1999). The sacred remains: American attitudes toward
death, 1799–1883. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lake, R. (1993). Planners’ alchemy transforming NIMBY to YIMBY: Rethink-
ing NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 87–93.
RJPA_A_479713.qxd 6/4/10 3:14 PM Page 317
Basmajian and Coutts: Planning for the Disposal of the Dead
Lawless, J. (2009, October 29). UK cemetery: Share a grave with a
stranger? San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/28/interna-
tional/i133251D14.DTL
Lee, C. (2006, May 29). VA burial grounds expand to fill need for more
graves. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 4, 2009, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/
28/AR2006052800891.html
Lee, R. (2003). The demographic transition: Three centuries of funda-
mental change. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(4), 167–190.
Lewis, S. (2001, February 8). Views differ on need for new cemetery.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. JM1.
Linden-Ward, B. (1989). Silent city on a hill: Landscapes of memory and
Boston’s Mount Auburn cemetery. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University
Downloaded by [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok] at 00:07 09 August 2013
Press.
Llewellyn, J. (1998). A cemetery should be forever: The challenge to
managers and directors. Glendale, IL: Tropico Press.
Loving, S. (2004, July). How a forgotten ravine was turned into a
memorial park’s showpiece. ICFM Magazine. Retrieved November 3,
2009, from http://www.iccfa.com/reading/2000-2009/how-forgotten-
ravine-was-turned-memorial-parks-showpiece
Mandelker, D. (1997). Land use law. Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law
Publishing.
Mangaliman, J. (1997). Designing space to bury people poses unusual
problems: Architects C. Peter Chow and Nancy Barba commissioned to
design high-occupancy graveyard at the existing Fairview-Cemetery in
West-Hartford, Connecticut. Architectural Record, 185(8), 32.
Marr, K. (2007, October 8). Green memorial concept growing in
Virginia. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 4, 2009, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701203.html
McNamara, K. (2002). Cultural anti-modernism and ‘the modern
memorial-park’: Hubert Eaton and the creation of Forest Lawn.
Canadian Review of American Studies, 32(3), 301–320.
Meierding, T. (1993). Marble tombstone weathering and air pollution
in North America. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
83(4), 568–588.
Meyer, R. (1993). Strangers in a strange land: Ethnic cemeteries in
America. In R. Meyer (Ed.), Ethnicity and the American Cemetery (pp.
1–13). Madison, WI: Popular Press.
Mitford, J. (1963). The American way of death. New York, NY: Dutton.
Mooallem, J. (2009, April 16). The end is near! (Yay!). New York Times
Magazine, p. MM28.
Mumford, L. (1961). The city in history. New York, NY: Penguin.
National Funeral Directors Association. (2005). U.S. cremation
statistics. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://www.nfda.org/
index.php/consumer-resources-cremation/78-us-cremation-statistics
National Funeral Directors Association. (2007). Funeral service facts.
Retrieved January 18, 2010, from http://www.nfda.org/about-funeral-
service/trends-and-statistics.html
Nelson, A. C. (2004). Planner’s estimating guide: Projecting land-use and
facility needs. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
Nurse, D. (2001, June 19). Muslims’ cemetery request on planners’
agenda. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. 1JJ.
Pattison, W. D. (1955). The cemeteries of Chicago: A phase of land
utilization. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 45(3),
245–257.
Paumgarten, N. (2009, August 29). Useless beauty. The New Yorker,
pp. 50–63.
317
Price, L. W. (1966). Some results and implications of a cemetery study.
Professional Geographer, 18(4), 201–207.
Prothero, S. (2001). Purified by fire: A history of cremation in America.
Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Rugg, J. (2000). Defining the place of burial: What makes a cemetery a
cemetery? Mortality, 5(3), 259–275.
Rugg, J. (2006). Lawn cemeteries: The emergence of a new landscape of
death. Urban History, 33(2), 213–233.
Sanders, G. (2008). Late capital: Negotiating a new American way of
death (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN.
Santarsiero, A., Cutilli, D., Cappiello, G., & Minelli, L. (2000).
Environmental and legislative aspects concerning existing and new
cemetery planning. Microchemical Journal, 67(1), 141–145.
Schuyler, D. (1986). The new urban landscape. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins Press.
Shaw, M. (2009, June 25). Plan adapts cities for the 55 plus: The
region’s aging baby boomer population calls for urban reinvention. The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. 1B.
Shiskin, P. (2009, January 2) Green revolution hits dead end in
Georgia cemetery proposal. The Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
Sloane, D. (1991). The last great necessity: Cemeteries in American history.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Smith, R. (1996). The death care industry in the United States. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland & Company.
Spongberg, A. & Becks, P. (2000). Inorganic soil contamination
from cemetery leachate. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 117(1–4),
313–327.
Sterba, J. (2006, June). Lessons learned on a journey down under.
ICFM Magazine. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from
http://www.iccfa.com/reading/2000-2009/lessons-learned-journey-
down-under
Streit, V. (2009, February 17). Green burials: A dying wish to be
“home for fish.” Retrieved February 27, 2009, from
http://www.cnn.com/ 2009/TECH/02/17/dying.green/
Teather, E. (1998). Themes from complex landscapes: Chinese ceme-
teries and columbaria in urban Hong Kong. Australian Geographical
Studies, 36(1), 21–36.
Teather, E. (1999). High-rise homes for the ancestors: Cremation in
Hong Kong. The Geographical Review, 89(3), 409–430.
Trick, J., Klinck, B. Coombs, P., Noy, D., Williams, G. (2005).
Burial sites and their impact on groundwater (IAHS Publication
297). In N. R. Thomson (Ed.), Proceedings of GQ2004, the 4th
International Groundwater Quality Conference: Bringing groundwater
quality research to the watershed scale (pp. 36–43). Waterloo, ON,
Canada: IAHS.
Walter, T. (2005). Three ways to arrange a funeral: Mortuary variation
in the modern west. Mortality, 10(3), 173–192.
Waugh, E. (1948). The loved one. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and
Company.
Wheeler, K., & Nauright, J. (2006). A global perspective on the
environmental impact of golf. Sport in Society, 9(3), 427–433.
Whyte, W. (1968). The last landscape. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Yalom, M. & Yalom, R. (2008). The American resting place. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Zelinsky, W. (1971). The hypothesis of the mobility transition.
Geographical Review, 61(2), 219–249.
Zelinsky, W. (1994). Gathering places for America’s dead: How many,
where, and why? The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 29–38.