Mortality, Vol. 12, No.

3, August 2007

Woodland burial: Memorial arboretum versus natural

native woodland?
ANDREW CLAYDEN1 & KATIE DIXON2
1
University of Sheffield, UK, and 2Watkins: Dally Chartered Landscape Architects,
Sheffield, UK

ABSTRACT This study explores the case of natural burial and the motives for the adoption of trees as
memorial objects to replace traditional grave markers. It specifically explores a single woodland burial
ground and two distinct communities who are connected to the site; bereaved people and pre-purchase
holders. Natural burial has developed in response to changing ideals, values, and shifts in attitude
towards death in contemporary Britain. Examination of memorial tree selection and the emotions
expressed about the chosen plant suggests that the adoption of trees as grave markers is the result of the
symbolic and sensory qualities that they offer as objects of memory and their perceived natural qualities
and environmental benefit. This study demonstrates the value placed on trees for their perceived
permanence and presence and the way in which they may embody aspects of personal and cultural
memory, thereby facilitating and sustaining relationships beyond the grave. It also explores the
motivations for choosing natural burial and the significance of the memorial tree and its connection with
the grave.

KEYWORDS: natural burial; woodland burial; memorialization; plant material culture

Introduction
The natural burial movement represents a significant change in the provision,
design, and management of burial space. The first natural burial ground opened in
1993 as an extension to an established Victorian cemetery in Carlisle, Cumbria
(Clayden, 2003, 2004). The concept for creating a different type of burial space
where headstones would not be permitted, but instead each grave would be
marked by the planting of a tree, was established by Ken West, Head of Carlisle
Bereavement Services. This new form of burial was, in part, seen as a solution to
problems associated with the management of cemeteries where maintaining access
to graves, many of which were no longer visited, was a costly exercise. It was also
an opportunity to attach a new purpose to burial, one of creating habitat without
the additional liability of ensuring that memorial headstones were not a danger to
people working in and visiting the cemetery. The inspiration to provide an

Correspondence: Andrew Clayden, Department of Landscape, Arts Tower, Western Bank,

Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. Tel: 0114 2220612. E-mail: a.clayden@sheffield.ac.uk

ISSN 1357-6275 (print) ISSN 1469-9885 (online) Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13576270701430700
 Woodland burial 241

alternative to the traditional cemetery came from a chance conversation between

Ken West and two elderly women, who were visiting the cemetery in Carlisle in
1991.1 The women expressed their dislike of the ‘‘conventional cemetery with its
boring lines of memorials,’’ their concern about the upkeep of their own graves as
they were both single with no family, and stated that their preference would be to
be ‘‘buried in their garden beneath a tree.’’
The provision of natural burial grounds has grown rapidly since that time and
there are now approximately 200 sites across the country.2 The majority of these
are extensions to established local authority cemeteries but there is also a
significant, and growing, number of privately managed natural burial grounds and
a smaller number managed by charitable trusts. Since its conception, the design
and management of natural burial grounds have evolved rapidly as providers
explore the creation of different landscape types, for example, wildflower burial.
Although there is some understanding of the breadth of design approaches
(Clayden, 2003, 2004; Wienrich & Sprayer, 2003) there has to date been no
published research undertaken on why people choose natural burial or the role of
plants as grave memorials.
This paper will consider the social context in which natural burial has developed
and the role of plants as memorial objects. The research focuses on the
community of a single natural burial ground which includes bereaved people and
those who have pre-purchased a burial plot. This community provides an
opportunity to examine the motives for choosing natural burial and the
significance of the memorial tree and its connection with the grave. It explores
the extent to which natural burial is an expression of a growing ‘‘ecological
consciousness’’ (Worpole, 2003) and the hope of a kind of ‘‘ecological
immortality’’ as suggested by Davies (2005, p. 86). It also questions the assertion
that natural burial will ‘‘provide little of ‘cultural’ moment, other than a
straightforward simulation of natural woodland’’ (Worpole, 1997, p. 31).
The findings suggest that the motives for choosing natural burial and the
significance of the memorial tree are more complex than has previously been
acknowledged. While there is a desire for a more ecological alternative to
traditional forms of disposal, this desire is not the only motivation for selecting a
natural burial and choosing a memorial tree. This choice may be informed by very
personal motives which are more about sustaining personal memories and the
identity of the deceased in ways which may only be visible to the bereaved family
and friends.

Social context of natural burial

The move towards natural burial is occurring as part of a wider upheaval in British
mortuary practice and changes in attitudes towards death. By studying our
cemetery landscapes we can identify and trace wider socio-cultural changes and
shifts in cultural values (Francis et al., 2000). In recent years the traditional
cemetery has been accused of no longer serving the needs of bereaved people, both
in regard to the appropriateness of the environment for grieving and in their
242 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

inability to operate in an increasingly secular, individualistic environment (Clegg,

1989; Walter, 1994). Traditional cemeteries are often perceived as harsh and
dilapidated and are frequently described as vandalized, unvisited, and overgrown
(Worpole, 1997). This general disaffection with the traditional cemetery has been
compounded by recent concerns regarding pressure for burial space and grave re-
use (HC91-1, 2001) and issues of health and safety of sites and the memorials
within them.
While religious belief has been decreasing, a growing culture of environment-
alism (Hockey, Katz, & Small, 2001) and an overt ‘‘culture of nature’’ has
developed; where valuing the ‘‘natural,’’ encouraging the purchase of organic
products, and living a lifestyle in tune with sound ecological principles flourishes
(Macnaghten & Urry, 2000a, p. 1). This ‘‘green movement’’ has spread directly to
the realms of the funeral industry. Specifically, the environmentally damaging
impacts of traditional burial and cremation practices have led people to seek out
more environmentally sensitive approaches to death. Macnaghten and Urry
(2000b) argue that the application of simple, natural practices is an attempt to
move away from the ‘‘urban way of life,’’ the modernity of industry, science, and
the city, and the throw-away society of contemporary Britain. ‘‘The seasonality of
trees, with leaves growing and then falling, can be viewed as denoting the
natural seasons which modern, urban societies have threatened to destroy’’
(Macnaghten & Urry, 2000b, p. 167).
This emergent relationship between nature and grief in twenty-first century
cemetery practice (Francis et al., 2000) sees a resurgence of eighteenth century
romanticism (Bradbury, 1999) and marks the desire to break away from the
constraints of modern life. Walter (1994) identifies a desire for a time when dying
was free of the constraints of modern medical intervention and technology and
when it was ‘‘more in touch with the natural rhythms of life and death’’ (Walter,
1994, p. 42).
The desire to reclaim control over death and the disposal of the dead was central
to the establishment of the Natural Death Centre (NDC), a charitable trust
founded in 1991 which promotes natural burial and coordinates the Association of
Natural Burial Grounds (ANBG). In establishing the NDC, Nicholas Albery, one
of the co-founders, sought to create a natural death movement to parallel the
natural childbirth movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Since its conception, the
provision of natural burial grounds has flourished, although demand for natural
burial would appear to vary considerably between burial grounds. Some of the
larger and typically privately managed sites have recorded increasing numbers of
burials year on year with total annual figures in some cases exceeding 300 per year.
In contrast many of the smaller sites, managed by local authorities, may record
fewer than 10 natural burials per year.
Site visits and interviews with burial ground managers3 and the ANBG register
of natural burial grounds reveal that the concept of natural burial is fluid in its
interpretation. No single model governs their ownership, location, design, or
management, and therefore the experience which users have may vary consi-
derably between natural burial grounds. Individual sites may be located within
 Woodland burial 243

traditional municipal cemeteries and administered by the local authority, or be on

privately owned land and managed by a private company or charitable trust. Burial
ground management policies concerning body preparation, coffin type, choice of
grave marker, and access to the grave reflect how each site determines its own
environmental objectives and responds to consumer requirements. For example,
where ecological objectives are the priority, the burial ground manager may
exercise much greater control over the selection of the tree and where it is planted,
which may not be on the grave. They may also prohibit embalming and woodchip
coffins as these are considered to be harmful to the environment. Because of the
complexity in the interpretation and implementation of natural burial, consumers
may not fully appreciate the consequences of the choices that they are making, or
how their choice of memorial tree, where permitted, may impact upon other burial
ground users. For example, tension may arise where a more aggressive species of
memorial tree overshadows its neighbours or where a bereaved person may feel
that their own ecological objectives are compromised because of inappropriate tree
selection by other burial ground users. Natural burial is entering uncharted
territory for which there are no models. The natural burial ground is a dynamic
landscape which will change over time through natural processes and evolving
management strategies.
The burial ground discussed in this paper is a woodland burial site in which a
tree is planted on each grave. It represents both the most typical interpretation of
natural burial, namely woodland burial, and the most common form of woodland
burial, where an individual tree is placed on each grave. Less typical approaches to
woodland burial include burial into woodland glades or into newly-established
woodland.

Plant material and its role as a memorial object

The symbolic importance of plants and specifically trees can be traced across a
wide range of different cultures, and the traditions associated with them may have
endured for hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of years. In Bali, for example,
Macnaghten and Urry (2000) note the use of coconut as a key ingredient of birth,
marriage, and death ceremonies. In north-west Zambia, Davis (2005) records how
the kapwipu tree, which symbolizes strength, has continued to be used as the
setting for female fertility rituals.
To these age old traditions of meaning may be added newly acquired
importance where trees have become the memorial focus as a result of significant
life events. For example, Brigham (2002) identifies the symbolic importance
attached to the ginkgo tree found amid the devastation of the Hiroshima bomb
and the Survivor Elm left standing at the site of the Oklahoma City bombing.
While these two memorials are different in their adoption, their intention is the
same, to commemorate and create a focus for remembrance.
There has been no research into why trees are seen as resource for individual
memorialization or the complexities and subtleties surrounding the way in which
trees may fulfil this role. It is suggested by Brigham (2002) that they offer scope for
244 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

antithetical imagery that is necessary for comfort following death; in particular,

they represent life as opposed to death, permanency as opposed to transience, and
provide a vehicle for continuing family relationships following loss. ‘‘By planting a
tree, we strive towards something that will carry beyond our mortal existence’’
(Brigham, 2002, p. 24).
While natural burial can be seen to be a reaction to complex social and cultural
changes, there is also a separate observable trend that sees the increasing use of
plants as objects of memory. This trend is taking place within the wider context of
an increasing desire to be memorialized and remembered. Research into the
removal of ashes from crematoria in the UK suggests a possible link between the
unprecedented rise in and the recent growth of plant-associated memorial
practice. Recent investigations into the act of disposal after the removal of ashes
have suggested that many people are opting to inter their loved ones in natural
environments or mark the location of the body with trees or plants4 (Hockey,
Kellaher, & Prendergast, 2005). It has been suggested by a number of researchers
that the increase in memorialization is a direct reaction to the ephemeral nature of
modern society (Frow, 1997).

The formation of sites of memory through increasingly eclectic and

interconnected cultural displays can be viewed as deeply felt responses to
the ‘‘ephemeral’’ aspects of contemporary living (Hallam & Hockey, 2001,
p. 204).

Permanence is particularly significant in the context of death where life is seen as

fleeting and there is a fear of forgetting. In the modern ‘‘speed society’’ where
items are cheap and disposable and life is lived fast, a growing anxiety about time
and impermanence has developed. Francis, Kellaher, and Neophytou (2000), in
their study of three London cemeteries, found that burial sites with short tenure
posed an increasing source of anxiety, and the desire for cross generational
endurance was a significant concern for bereaved people. In particular, the
perceived impermanence of traditional cemeteries and the recent threat of grave
re-use compounded this anxiety and have led to the search for a more enduring
form of commemoration.
Huyssen (1995) refers to this process as ‘‘temporal and spatial anchoring,’’ the
need to express emotion and articulate memory through objects of permanence
and solidity. The ‘‘quality’’ of a memory object relates to its perceived ability to
endure time, and operate across it. ‘‘The permanence of the monument and
museum object . . . takes on a different role in a culture dominated by fleeting
image on the screen and the immateriality of communications’’ (Huyssen, 1995,
p. 255). The metaphor of time, it is argued, not only relates to the object’s
permanence, the persistence of the object directly reflecting the persistence of the
memory, but also its ability to represent the passing of time. ‘‘The materiality of
memory objects often alludes directly to the bodily processes of dying, death and
decay and such objects maintain tensions between physical presence and the
threat of disintegration and absence’’ (Hallam & Hockey, 2001, p. 48).
 Woodland burial 245

The increasing use of plant material as objects of memory therefore appears to

be the result of their ability to register the passage of time through an explicit
iconography of natural world processes as well as their perceived endurance. Their
ability to outlive humans has led to them becoming potential symbols of
immortality in many cultures. Macnaghten and Urry (2000) highlight the
importance of trees as symbols of ‘‘transgenerational continuity’’ and the qualities
of vitality and self-generation that warrant their extensive use as markers of the life
process across cultures and societies. Their relative longevity and fruitfulness can
symbolize an investment for life and an indication of the strength of the child,
marriage, or memory (Coder, 1996; Macnaghten & Urry, 2000).
In addition to bridging generations and retaining memory, there are many
examples that demonstrate the belief that the tree is a physical manifestation of the
person. Jordan (2001) highlights the recent trend for planting birth-trees in
Europe and the links that are made between person and tree at the time of
planting. He sees this revitalization of an ancient custom as part of the move away
from more orthodox birth and death rites and the desire for alternative
ceremonies; ‘‘In European countries, including England, France, Italy, Germany
and Russia, the link between human life and trees has encouraged the planting of a
tree to mark the birth of a child. The tree then becomes something of an alter ego
and, as it grows with the child, it receives special care’’ (Jordan, 2001, p. 253). The
actual embodiment of the person within the tree has been taken a stage further
by the Biopresence project, which aims to combine human DNA with the DNA
of a tree to create a ‘‘transgenic headstone’’ or living memorial (http://www.
biopresence.com).
Woodland burial demonstrates a modern interpretation of an age old theme and
suggests that trees provide a way of expressing a desire in modern society for
immortality and endurance beyond death. This research study suggest that trees
are being used not merely as memento mori but that they offer bereaved people a
dynamic and enduring physical manifestation of the deceased. If this is the case,
what is the relationship that bereaved people will have with a memorial tree
following a death, how does this compare with relationships to traditional
memorial objects, and what implications may this have on the future of woodland
burial sites? At present, woodland burial grounds have not yet reached a stage of
maturity where individual memorial trees are competing with one another for
space and light. It will be interesting to observe how this competition will be
played out within the burial ground, how it will be managed, and the impact it may
have on bereaved people and other users. Research by Cloke and Jones (2004) at
Arnos Vale cemetery in Bristol reveals how the original tree planting in this
neglected Victorian cemetery has adapted to the site and been instrumental in
redefining the experience and activities of users but also in shaping and securing
the future of a landscape once threatened by neglect and new development.
Woodland burial grounds have not yet reached the point where individual
memorial trees and grave identities have become subsumed into a shared
memorial landscape. In light of the findings of Cloke and Jones it will be
interesting to observe how the evolving memorial tree community shapes the
246 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

experiences of bereaved people who may maintain a contact with the site but also
how they may act upon visitors who may be unfamiliar with their original purpose.
Although there is a substantial literature on theories of grief and the therapeutic
qualities of nature and woodland (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982; Ulrich, 1981), little
attention has been given to the psychological benefits of relationships that exist
between living memorials and bereaved people. Previous grave studies have
highlighted the often complex, very personal, relationships that exist following the
death of a loved one. The desire for memorialization is not just a search for
‘‘permanency’’ but also relates to the need of bereaved people to have a ‘‘focus,’’
to find an object through which they can channel feelings of grief and mourning.
The concept of ‘‘continuing bonds’’ is a cultural concept that has been at the
forefront of theories of grief since it was highlighted by Klass et al. (1996). ‘‘For all
communities (studied) deceased kin are considered members of the existing
family. The ideal of fulfilment of reciprocal obligations between parent and child
and wife and husband continues throughout life and beyond the grave’’ (Francis
et al., 2000, p. 37).
This relationship has become an increasingly overt aspect of the bereavement
process, offering observable psychological benefits. The continuing link between
the survivor and the deceased is often manifested and sustained through material
objects (Klass, Silverman, & Nickman, 1996). These objects provide multi-faceted
benefits; they fulfil the need for a ‘‘focus,’’ enable the ‘‘anchoring’’ (Bradbury,
1999, 2001) of the deceased and provide a tangible object which the bereaved can
visit and interact with. Francis et al.’s study into grave behaviour (2000, 2001,
2005) observed the complexity of relationships that exist between bereaved and
deceased at the graveside. Their study discovered a complex dialogue between
bereaved people and the deceased that included tending the grave, headstone, and
adjacent grounds, and the participation in personal rituals that included saying
prayers, placing flowers, and depositing grave goods. Francis et al. (2000) suggest
that tending the grave ‘‘appears to serve as a proxy act of physical contact with the
deceased’’ (2000, p. 43) and that the choice of headstone is a fundamental
intervention by the living to reconstruct the identity of the deceased. Their research
at the City of London cemetery also illustrates how plant material taken from the
home and planted on the grave may be used to facilitate memories of place. They
cite the example of two elderly women who planted thrift taken from their father’s
window box as a reminder of their old neighbourhood (2005, p. 101).
This perceived duty to the deceased is most clearly demonstrated by the culture
of leaving cut flowers on the grave. Studies suggest that there is a general
perception that by not leaving cut flowers the relative is somehow neglecting the
deceased and that leaving floral tributes is a duty which relatives feel they must
fulfil. In a number of European countries, the use of living plants is considered to
be cheating or a second-class option (Goody & Poppi, 1994) and that visiting and
leaving plant materials is a way of maintaining ‘‘networks of kin’’:

In the case of Italian cemeteries, flowers act as the ongoing witness of the active
relationship between the living and the dead. The very fact that their freshness
 Woodland burial 247

betrays the frequency of visits compels the cult to be kept once it has started
(Goody & Poppi, 1994, p. 149).

The potential relationships that exist between a memorial plant and a person
at the graveside have as yet received little critical attention. This study suggests
that, where there is a choice, a tree is often selected for very personal reasons
exclusive to the deceased and that selecting a tree can be an opportunity to
reconstruct the deceased’s identity, offering a tangible ‘‘focus’’ with which to
continue relationships.

Research method
This study focused on the users of a single natural burial ground. Site selection was
therefore extremely important in providing the best possible opportunity to
investigate user attitudes towards natural burial and selection of the memorial
plant. The site was chosen on the basis that it was well established with a significant
number of burials. This would potentially give access to a wide range of
participants with varying lengths of contact with the site. It was also important
that the memorial plant was selected by the deceased or next of kin and that it was
planted on the grave. This would enable us to explore individual rather than
institutional motivations for plant selection and the significance of its relationship
with the grave. Context was also considered to be important. The majority of
natural burial grounds have been developed as extensions to established cemeteries.
For the purpose of this study we wished to isolate the user from the familiar
iconography of the cemetery including buildings, boundary walls, and gravestones
(see Rugg, 2000) and areas where other family members may be buried.
The selected burial ground, which fulfilled each of these criteria, was opened in
1996 and is owned and managed by a private funeral directors. It is located on the
outskirts of a small village, surrounded by open fields, and is approximately 2.5
hectares. There have been in excess of 350 burials and it is also possible to pre-
purchase a grave. The burial ground has no denominational affiliation and permits
the burial of cremated remains. Plant selection is entirely at the discretion of the
client. Additional memorials are permitted at the site, although restrictions are in
place to prevent excessive ad hoc memorialization. Typically a small stone or
wooden plaque, on which is recorded the name of the deceased and dates of birth
and death, is placed flat on the grave.
Two questionnaires were collated; one for the pre-purchase group and one for
bereaved people. The pre-purchase response group provided a unique opportunity
to investigate immediate motivations for selecting natural burial. This group was
anticipated to have strong views on the subject due to their proactive approach to
funeral arrangement. It also allowed investigation of more sensitive issues which
might be upsetting for a bereaved relative, for example, how long should the
memorial tree be retained.
The bereaved group offered the opportunity to examine the importance and
significance of plant selection and the relationships that existed between the
248 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

person, the plant, and the burial ground following the death of their loved one.
This group would provide a direct user perspective of natural burial. The response
rate for pre-purchase and bereaved relatives was 50% (n ¼ 19) and 40% (n ¼ 90),
respectively.
The results and discussion have been organized into three separate areas of
inquiry. The first area explores the motives for choosing natural burial. Questions
were directed at the pre-purchase participants only because we could not be sure
that bereaved participants either chose or supported natural burial as a disposal
option. Bereaved participants did however provide unsolicited qualitative
feedback on their or their friend or relatives motivations for choosing natural
burial. The second area looks at which trees were selected and what informed this
decision. These questions were directed at bereaved and pre-purchase partici-
pants. The third and final area of study examined what significance was attached
to the memorial tree and its location on the grave. These questions were directed
at the bereaved participants who could give a user perspective of experiencing the
burial ground. The questionnaire uses a diverse questioning technique, collating
general demographic and quantitative data, Likert scale semi-qualitative
questioning, and opportunities for free form text. The quantitative data is
presented in the form of tables and summaries. The free form text is reported in
relation to the pre-coding of themes that were set out within the questionnaire.

Discussion and results

Motivations for choosing natural burial
In order to investigate motivations for choosing natural burial, the pre-purchase
participants were asked to rate a series of statements on a Likert scale. The selection
of statements of motivation was informed by the literature review and the potential
reasons outlined in academic discourse for the recent changes in mortuary practice.
The statements aimed to explore four themes: self-identity, burial environment,
memorialization, and cost. The results for each statement have been compressed
from five options ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to three
options. The ‘‘neither agree nor disagree’’ have been retained, while ‘‘agree’’ and
‘‘disagree’’ responses have been compressed into two separate columns. Table 1
shows the percentage results for a selection of the possible motivational statements.
Although the response rate was good for the pre-purchase group, the sample is
small (n ¼ 19). The results tend to be similarly consistent for each of the
statements. It is therefore difficult to ascertain a precise order in which motivations
are given significance. This may suggest that respondents’ reasons for selecting
natural burial are both complex and interrelated.
One might expect motivations concerning ‘‘self and identity’’ and an affinity
with ‘‘nature’’ to score highly for a group who are choosing natural burial for
themselves. The results would appear to support the ‘‘ecological’’ aspirations of
natural burial put forward by Davies (2005) and Worpole (2003) with 84%
agreeing that they ‘‘liked the idea of returning to nature.’’ However when asked to
 Woodland burial 249

TABLE 1. Pre-purchase users responses to motivational statements for selecting natural burial
(n ¼ 19)

% of neither
% of agree agree or % of
Statements responses disagree disagree

Self and identity

I like the idea of returning to nature 84 16 0
Woodland burial is in keeping with 71 23 6
my philosophical/spiritual beliefs
Burial environment
Woodland burial is a more attractive 89 11 0
place for family and friends to visit
than the traditional cemeteries
Woodland burial will provide a more 82 12 6
therapeutic environment that will
help ease the grieving process
Memorialization
I like the idea of a living memorial that 100 0 0
will continue to grow after my death
I am comfortable with the idea of ultimately 69 17 4
being part of a collective memorial in
which my identity will become anonymous
Cost
Woodland burial was more affordable 35 53 12
than traditional burial methods

what extent they would agree or disagree that ‘‘woodland burial is in keeping with
their philosophical/spiritual beliefs’’ there is an increase in the proportion who do
‘‘not agree’’ with this statement. There has been an assumption that natural burial
is partly driven by a secular demand for burial provision away from the established
church in un-consecrated land. The following comments appear to support this
position:

Being totally non-religious it would be very hypocritical to be buried on

religious/consecrated ground—yuck! (P/3) (P ¼ pre-purchase and number 3
identifies the respondent).

A bonus for me, as an atheist, is that a woodland burial is an effective means of

eliminating religious mumbo jumbo from funeral arrangements (P/16).

My husband and I both wanted to be buried in a non-religious but quiet/private

place which we could choose together (P/3).

The survey identified that 60% of pre-purchase respondents and 58% of bereaved
respondents recorded their religion as Christian. Even so, burial within
250 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

un-consecrated land did not appear to compromise their beliefs. One respondent
did however comment that the desire to secure a burial plot was the principal
motivation in choosing natural burial and that natural burial was not the preferred
disposal option:

I chose this method because I was unable to pre-purchase a burial plot in my

home of S-O-T. Ideally, I should like to be buried with my family and past
generation.

For my belief (and family—Roman Catholic) my family would prefer a burial in

a traditional cemetery (P/18).

The results also suggest that one of the motivations for choosing a woodland
burial is a perception that it is more attractive than ‘‘traditional cemeteries’’ and
more ‘‘therapeutic’’ for bereaved people. Again, one might expect these results
from participants who have selected this disposal option. Comments from
bereaved respondents who may not have chosen natural burial but who have
experience of the burial ground also support this view. Some respondents were
choosing natural burial because of a perceived neglect of the cemetery and because
they did not consider it an appropriate environment for grieving:

I think people find cemeteries increasingly depressing and uncared for places,
and find woodland burial sites more in tune with conserving the environment
(B/13) (B ¼ bereaved relatives etc.).

. . . see graveyard as being increasingly cold and sterile, woodland

graveyard being more ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘warm’’ for visitors and those buried
there (P/12).

For all respondents, the choice of a living memorial to mark their grave was a
significant motivation for choosing natural burial. It was therefore surprising that
there was a reduction in the percentage of respondents who did not agree that they
were ‘‘comfortable with becoming part of a collective memorial in which their own
identity may become anonymous’’; given that the memorial tree could be lost
through natural competition or disease. It would appear that the tree is perceived
to be durable even though relatively short-lived species, like birch, are popular
choices.
The cost of traditional burial was considered to be a significant motivation in
promoting a more affordable natural burial alternative (see Wienrich & Speyer,
2003). The study site provides information to potential clients on the cost of a
grave and how this compares to other local disposal options. The study site is
approximately one-third cheaper than any other local provider. Despite these
savings, this statement received the smallest percentage of agree responses (35%).
It may be that they are unaware of the range of burial costs or that it was not
considered to be a significant issue in informing their choice. In recent years, the
 Woodland burial 251

largest growth in demand for natural burial has been at some of the larger private
sites which tend to offer a wider range of services and charge higher fees.

Memorial tree selection and the motivations which inform

this choice
The following section explores the choice and significance of the memorial plant.
Participants from the pre-purchase and bereaved survey groups were asked to
specify the plant they had selected. Although shrubs could be chosen as the
memorial plant, a tree was the preferred options in all cases.5 Within the bereaved
sample, the memorial tree may have been chosen by the deceased although the
survey revealed that this only accounted for 14.4% (13 out of 90) of all of the
responses. Figure 1 shows the frequency and variety of different tree types selected
by the bereaved sample group.
In order of preference, the most popular memorial trees for both pre-purchase
and bereaved respondents were oak, rowan, and silver birch. These were selected
by a similar proportion of respondents in both sample groups and accounted for
approximately 45% of all of the memorial trees in the survey. The variety of trees

FIGURE 1. Frequency of trees selected: Bereaved response group.

252 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

selected by the bereaved participants was much larger than for the pre-purchase
participants (29 and 11, respectively). This may partly be accounted for by the
difference in numbers of respondents (bereaved ¼ 90; pre-purchase ¼ 19) but it
may also indicate that tree selection is guided by different criteria when the choice
is made by bereaved people rather than the pre-purchaser. The selection of native
species is greater for the pre-purchase survey group. This may indicate a greater
priority to select trees that are appropriate in establishing native woodland. It may
also suggest that, where the tree is selected by bereaved relatives, other moti-
vations become more influential. Figure 2 shows the relationship between tree
type and gender of the deceased.6 This would appear to suggest that gender may
have some influence on tree selection. The most popular choice of tree for men is
oak, whereas for women it is silver birch.
In order to try and clarify the motives which inform the selection of the
memorial tree, the respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a
series of statements about the tree and its attributes, using a Likert scale.
Statements about the chosen tree included its physical attribute, its appropriate-
ness to the burial site/context, and its connection to the deceased or pre-purchase
holder. Results from the bereaved group show an overwhelming agreement that
the choice of tree species is important, with 65% of respondents strongly
disagreeing with the statement ‘‘Tree type is unimportant.’’ The type of tree was

FIGURE 2. Relationship between gender of the deceased and selection of the memorial tree.
 Woodland burial 253

less important for the pre-purchase group, with only 36% strongly disagreeing to
this statement. Generally, the results demonstrate the complexity of motivations
driving the selection of tree type. A number of factors appear to influence tree
selection and their significance varies across respondents and response groups.
Across response groups, the attractiveness of the tree, its appropriateness to the
site and context, and its size and longevity were the most significant factors
informing choice. For the bereaved relative or friend, the tree’s longevity was the
most important factor. Longevity was less important for the pre-purchase group
with aesthetic quality and/or personal preference having a greater priority (see
Table 2). These results highlight the general perception by the burial ground user
of a particular tree as ‘‘long-living’’ regardless of species. For example, the
‘‘longevity’’ of a species is often a significant motivation for choice but the
observable preference for the relatively short-lived species like birch may
demonstrate a misconception about this tree.
The importance attached to potential longevity and attractiveness demonstrates
the need to mark the grave with an object worthy of honouring the memory of the
deceased. Permanence is a recurring theme and throughout the study the ability of
trees to endure and represent the passage of time were significant factors for
selecting natural burial. The preference for deciduous, native species may be
directly related to the embedded culture and symbolic connection between the
seasonal cycle, the passage of time, and eventual death (see Jones & Cloke, 2002).
As the ability of a memorial to endure time is often equated to the persistence of
living memory (Salisbury, 2002), the longevity of the tree species is key to
maintaining memories and continuing relationships with the deceased.
The stature and size of the tree are also key factors, with larger species such as
oak and beech proving popular choices. All of these qualities demonstrate the
desire for the memorial tree to have a ‘‘presence,’’ to be unique, and to be
identifiable within the wider landscape. One respondent tells of the pursuit for
such presence:

. . . my son was one of those energetic bouncing balls of life and love. He died of
an unexpected and unexplained heart attack. We wanted a tree one day that

TABLE 2. Reasons for selecting the memorial tree ranked in order of importance

Bereaved response group Pre-purchase response group

Rank order n ¼ 90 n ¼ 19

1 Longevity Simply like the tree

2 Attractiveness Attractiveness
3 Appropriateness to site Longevity
4 Size Favourite
5 Personality of deceased Appropriateness to site
6 Memories Size
7 Deceased’s favourite Habitat
8 Tree type unimportant Memories
254 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

would be enormous and have a presence. I think, in fact, in our grief we have
chosen the wrong type of beech (B/90).

Another respondent illustrates the thought that goes into assuring their tree will be
recognizable:

Most of the trees there had green leaves but this one had rich dark red leaves so
it will stand out (B/82).

This importance of ‘‘presence’’ is demonstrated by the overwhelming selection

of trees and the rejection of shrubs as grave markers. Shrubs are perceived to
be less permanent and have less presence and therefore are inadequate and
unworthy grave markers. The results also show evidence of deeper, more
personal motivations for tree selection, with 40% of bereaved and 46% of pre-
purchase respondents ‘‘strongly agreeing’’ with the statement that the tree
‘‘holds special memories’’ of the deceased or pre-purchase holder. The
selection of the memorial tree represents a key opportunity to sustain the
memory of the deceased. Unlike traditional grave markers that attach meaning
and construct identity through inscriptions, drawings, and photographs which
are accessible to all who visit the cemetery, the tree has the potential to
embody ideals, memories, and identity in a form that may only be visible to the
family and friends of the deceased. Qualitative data from bereaved respondents
begin to reveal some of these hidden narratives which show connections
between the memorial tree; a place, an event or occasion, or as a way of
capturing an attribute of the deceased.
The importance attached to home and childhood was expressed by a number of
participants:

It was the tree that grew in the front garden of our family house (B/27).

My mother cared for us for the first 18 years in Beech Avenue, the one outside
our house much the same age as us, grew with us (B/75).

No plot reserved as yet, but perhaps a poplar might be appropriate. It is tall,

which Jim is not, and it reminds me of those my parents planted in my
childhood (B/33).

Tree selection might also combine location with a significant event:

It is the same species as one planted at home, which was a ruby wedding
anniversary gift from family (B/32).

The wide variety of ornamental trees and fruiting trees found in the burial ground,
which include, for example, robinia, magnolia, and pear, may reflect the in-
fluence that the domestic and familiar have upon the choice of memorial tree.
 Woodland burial 255

The potential influence of the home on tree selection is perhaps far greater than it
might first appear from the list of selected memorial trees. Unfortunately, the level
of detail with which respondents were able to botanically identify the memorial
tree was extremely varied. Some gave both Latin and common names and even
variety or cultivar, while the majority only recorded the common name, for
example oak or willow. This lack of detail can misrepresent what is actually
happening in the burial ground. For example, cherry and willow are a popular
choice but there are native and ornamental forms for each species. Many of the
willow trees seen in the burial ground are in fact ornamental forms of the dwarf
weeping willow (Salix caprea ‘‘Pendula’’).
While the significance of longevity and the ability of trees to mark time has
already been identified, anecdotal evidence suggests that the marking of time is
also demonstrated more specifically by relating directly to events associated with
the deceased and the continued marking of significant life events:

We use silver birch twigs for our ‘‘Easter Tree’’ and Mum died at Easter
(B/16).

The tree flowers in the month our son died (B/23).

It flowers in the spring when he was conceived and has berries around the time
of his birthday (B/70).

The importance of the tree as grave marker and memorial

This section explores the significance of the physical connections between the tree
and the grave for bereaved people. The planting of a tree on the grave, although
common, is not a characteristic of all natural burial grounds. Respondents from
both groups were asked ‘‘how important is it to you that the grave is marked with
an individual tree?’’ A total of 81% of bereaved and 68% of pre-purchase
respondents ‘‘strongly agreed’’ with this statement, and 90% of the bereaved
sample confirmed that they recognized and could identify ‘‘their’’ tree. Pre-
purchase respondents were asked how important it was that the individual tree was
retained as a permanent living memorial. The majority (68.4%) confirmed that it
was very important, with only 10.5% agreeing that it was unimportant. It was not
considered appropriate to ask bereaved users this question as it could have
generated concern about the future of their tree.
Respondents’ for both groups were also asked to rate on a Likert scale which
statement most closely reflected their reasons for wanting to plant a tree on the
grave. Table 3 shows the results for the bereaved response group.
Individual trees were considered important primarily because they enabled both
the bereaved and pre-purchase respondents the opportunity to celebrate and
honour an individual life. An individual tree would also provide a focus for visits
and for future grieving and gave bereaved people the opportunity to personalize
the grave.
256 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

TABLE 3. Motivations for planting a tree on the grave. Bereaved response group (n ¼ 90)

% Neither
% Strongly agree or % Strongly
Motivation agree % Agree disagree % Disagree disagree

Personalise the plot 69.2 11.5 12.8 1.3 5.1

Unique celebration of 79.5 9 2.6 3.8 5.1
individual life
Loved one has presence 65.4 7.7 9 5.1 12.8
through the tree
Mark location of grave 54.5 22.1 18.2 1.3 3.9
Watch growth/change 74 16.9 5.2 1.3 2.6
Provide focus 68.8 11.7 10.4 1.3 7.8
Like to tend tree 49.4 19.5 14.3 7.8 9.1

The bereaved respondents were asked an additional statement about the extent
to which they agreed or disagreed that ‘‘the loved one has a presence through the
tree.’’ A total of 65.4% ‘‘strongly agreed’’ with this statement. For some the tree
would appear to become a ‘‘prosthetic device’’ (Berry, 1992), acting as a direct
substitute for the deceased. However, this statement also received the largest
percentage of strongly disagree responses (12.8%). This may reflect the fact that
58% of bereaved respondents identified their religion as Christian and that to
agree with this statement may compromise their belief in the resurrection.
When compared to a memorial headstone or plaque, the physical presence of
the tree, its ‘‘living’’ quality, and its ability to articulate the passing of time and
cycles of nature potentially make it a more powerful and emotive memorial object.
For some the tree may be perceived as the reincarnation of the deceased and the
relationship may be more intense because of the unique living qualities of the tree
to create a more corporeal connection:

In a way I see this much loved tree as an extension of my Mum. I would imagine
her being absorbed into the roots and living on in the form (B/21).

I come to spend time with my parents and remember all they did for me and
others. I feel a strong emotional contact with them due to the tree being alive
(B/45).

Other respondents record how the bodily remains have a tangible presence
assisting growth and producing the fruits and seeds that sustain wildlife:

Eventually when the roots stretch down that far . . . its fruits and flowers will
contain something of our son’s essence (B/70).

The natural cycles and progression of time observable through the tree also allow
it to embody metaphors of hope, life, and renewal while simultaneously providing
 Woodland burial 257

a strong, physical presence with which to interact and draw strength from. In the
case of this respondent, the tree becomes a surrogate father:

My son was just 22 years. He loved life. I cried and screamed after the
funeral that I didn’t want to hug a f***ing tree. I felt very angry, still do, but I
do like seeing the tree taller now and representing beauty and life and I
hope when his daughter, now 6 years old, one day stands beside the thick trunk of
this tree, she will receive some pleasure and comfort from touching it (B/92).

The felt need to retain physical and psychological contact with the deceased is
facilitated in similar ways to those demonstrated at the traditional cemetery,
through the tending of the grave and tree.
I just feel I can talk to my late husband easier there while I am weeding his little
garden (B/80).

There is also evidence of a new desire to reconnect the public grave with the
private domain and reintegrate and maintain the deceased as a family member
through the physical presence of the tree and as earlier noted the selection of
ornamental garden trees. A small percentage of respondents (10%) recorded that
they took natural materials from their tree home with them, including nuts, fruit,
twigs, and leaves. Similarly, some respondents brought plant materials from their
private garden to the grave. This transference of materials suggests that there is a
desire to bring an element of the deceased to the private domain and integrate
them with aspects of everyday life.
These results suggest that having an individual tree is less about practical or
functional locating or marking the grave but more specifically about replacing and
possibly exceeding the symbolic role of the traditional grave marker; reconstruct-
ing identity, celebrating the individual, and providing a focus through which
continuing relationships can be expressed.

Conclusions
The findings from this study of a single woodland burial ground cannot be
translated into the experiences of other natural burial ground users. Each natural
burial ground has its own unique circumstances including context, design, and
management which will shape the user’s experience. This study begins to convey
the complex and interrelated motivations for choosing natural burial and, in the
case of this burial site, the importance of the grave tree.
A growing concern for the environment, dissatisfaction with existing cemetery
provision, and perhaps a desire for a new ‘‘ecological immortality’’ (Davis, 2005)
expressed through natural life cycles are important motives in attracting people to
natural burial. The desire for ‘‘ecological immortality’’ was expressed by one
respondent:

My body will feed the tree; the tree will grow, provide habitats for animals and
help the planet. How great is that! (P/3).
258 A. Clayden & K. Dixon

As Davies acknowledges, ‘‘ecological immortality’’ does not exclude other

motivations for choosing natural burial, including ‘‘traditional notions of heaven
and its prospective identity’’ (Davis, 2005, p. 86). This would appear to be true for
this natural burial ground where the majority of bereaved and pre-purchase
respondents identified their religion as Christian (58% and 60%, respectively).
There is however the potential for tensions to exist between the wish to fulfil
environmental aspirations, notions of nature and ecology, and other more personal
motivations. This is especially true for bereaved people who, when selecting the
grave tree, are aware of its potential to reconstruct identity and facilitate personal
memories. The result of these competing objectives is the creation of a landscape
which from purely ecological perspective would not develop spontaneously but
which requires considerable human intervention. This would appear to contradict
the view expressed by Worpole (1997) quoted in the introduction to this paper,
‘‘that ‘natural burial’ sites provide little of architectural or ‘cultural’ moment, other
than a straightforward simulation of natural woodland.’’ Natural woodland can only
be achieved where there is much greater control over tree specification, establish-
ment, and management. This burial ground with its unique combination of native,
ornamental, and fruiting ‘‘garden’’ trees might look to the natural historian or
ecologist more like an arboretum or lost garden than a ‘‘native’’ and therefore
‘‘natural’’ woodland. For many users, who may not be familiar with native
woodland flora, the ecological significance of the memorial tree may be its potential
to demonstrate natural processes of growth and seasonal change and to record
‘‘nature or natural time’’ (Jones & Cloke, 2002, p. 223) rather than its native
woodland credentials.7 One might expect that, for those users whose primary
motivations for selecting the memorial tree are on the basis of its native qualities,
their motivation for choosing a natural burial would be diminished. This potential
conflict regarding different interpretations of nature (see MacNaghten & Urry,
1998) was not identified by any of the respondents. It would be interesting to
compare the results for this site with a natural burial ground where the choice of tree
is from a prescribed list of native species to see what impact this may have on the
potential of the memorial tree to sustain memories and the identity of the deceased.
The cultural significance of natural burial, in a society where burial is presumed
to be eternal, in a grave without a headstone is an acceptance by those that use them
that the location of the grave and the identity of the deceased may be lost with the
passage of time. The natural burial ground used for this study, when full, is expected
to become a nature reserve in which ultimately there may be little or no trace of
burial. Only then will the bereaved be able to translate the hidden narratives and
symbolism that is attached to the selection of trees and making of this landscape.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments on the paper by the two
anonymous reviewers and Jenny Hockey, Paul Selman and Jan Woudstra. We would
also like to acknowledge the invaluable support we received from the manager,
staff and friends group of the woodland burial ground that we investigated.
 Woodland burial 259

Notes
[1] Quotations from personal e-mail correspondence with Ken West, October 7, 2002.
[2] Information provided by the Natural Death Centre who then managed the Association of
Natural Burial Grounds (ANBG).
[3] Andrew Clayden has visited and met with burial ground managers at approximately 20 natural
burial sites within the UK.
[4] Information provided by Professor Jenny Hockey regarding the ESRC funded research project
‘‘Where have all the ashes gone?’’ Co-investigators Leonie Kelleher and Dr. David Prendergast.
[5] A shrub is a woody plant with multiple stems from the base. A tree is also a woody plant but has
a well defined stem or trunk and a head of branches.
[6] Not all respondents identified the gender of the deceased which accounts for the discrepancy in
total numbers between Figures 1 and 2.
[7] For the ecologists and natural scientist there is a clear distinction between what is a native plant
and therefore natural and what is non-native and either naturalized or exotic species. In simple
terms, a native plant is one that has continued to grow in Britain since the separation of Britain
from mainland Europe at the end of the last Ice Age. Naturalized or exotic species are those
which have been introduced to the British flora since this separation. For a fuller explanation see
Hitchmough and Fieldhouse (2004) and Jones and Cloke (2002).

REFERENCES
BERRY, M. (1992) Designing for eternity: The cemetery landscape as a therapeutic environment.
Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
BRADBURY, M. (1999) Representations of death: a social psychological perspective. London: Routledge.
BRADBURY, M. (2001) Forget me not: Memorialization in cemeteries and crematoria. In J. HOCKEY,
J. KATZ, & N. SMALL (Eds.), Grief, mourning and death ritual. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
BRIGHAM, D. (2002) Living memorials. Landscape Architecture, 14(2), 237 – 238.
CLAYDEN, A. (2003) Woodland burial. Landscape Design, 322, 22 – 25.
CLAYDEN, A. (2004) Natural burial. British style. Landscape Architecture, 94(5), 68 – 77.
CLEGG, F. (1989) Cemeteries for the Living. Landscape Design, 184, 15 – 17.
CLOKE, P. & JONES, O. (2004) Turning in the graveyard: trees and the hybrid geogra-
phies of dwelling, monitoring and resistance in a Bristol cemetery. Cultural Geographies, 11,
313 – 341.
CODER, K. (1996) Cultural aspects of trees: Traditions and myths. Retrieved June, 2004, from
http://www.stavacademy.co.uk/mimir/culturaltrees.htm
DAVIS, D. J. (2005) A brief history of death. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
FRANCIS, D., KELLAHER, L., & NEOPHYTOU, G. (2000) Sustaining cemeteries: the user perspective.
Mortality, 5(1), pp. 34 – 51.
FRANCIS, D., KELLAHER, L., & SMALL, N. (2001) The cemetery: the evidence of continuing bonds.
In J. HOCKEY, J. KATZ, & N. SMALL (Eds.), Grief, mourning and death ritual. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
FRANCIS, D., KELLAHER, L., & NEOPHYTOU, G. (2005) The secret cemetery. Oxford: Berg.
FROW, J. (1997) Time and commodity culture: Essays in cultural theory and post-modernity. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
GOODY, J., & POPPI, C. (1994) Flowers and bones: Approaches to the dead in Anglo-American and Italian
cemeteries. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, pp. 146 – 175.
HALLAM, E., & HOCKEY, J. (2001) Death, memory and material culture. Oxford: Berg.
HC91-1 (2001) Cemeteries: environment, transport and regional affaires committee. London: The
Stationary Office.
HITCHMOUGH, J., & FIELDHOUSE, K. (2004) The plant user handbook. Oxford: Blackwell.
HOCKEY, J., KATZ, J., & SMALL, N. (2001) Grief, mourning and death ritual. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
HOCKEY, J., KELLAHER, L., & PRENDERGAST, D. (2005) In the shadow of the traditional grave.
Mortality, 10(4), 237 – 250.
260 A. Clayden & K. Dixon
HOUSE OF COMMONS (2001) Cemeteries: report and proceedings of the committee, together with the minutes
of evidence taken before the environment sub-committee, eighth Report, Vol. 1: Environment transport
and regional affairs committee. London: The Stationary Office.
HUYSSEN, A. (1995) Twilight memories: Marking time in a culture of amnesia. London: Routledge.
JONES, O., & CLOKE, P. (2002) Tree cultures. Oxford: Berg.
JORDAN, M. (2001) The green mantle: An investigation into our lost knowledge of plants. Unpublished:
Masters Thesis.
KAPLAN, S., & KAPLAN, R. (1982) Humanscape: environments for people. Michigan: Ulrich’s
Bookstore.
KLASS, D., SILVERMAN, R., & NICKMAN, S. L. (1996) Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief.
London: Taylor & Francis.
MACNAGHTEN, P., & URRY, J. (1998) Contested natures. London: Sage.
MACNAGHTEN, P., & URRY, J. (2000a) Introduction. Body and Society, 6(3 – 4), 1 – 11.
MACNAGHTEN, P., & URRY, J. (2000b) Bodies in the woods. Body and Society, 6(3 – 4), 166 – 182.
RUGG, J. (2000) Defining the place of burial: what makes a cemetery a cemetery? Mortality, 5(3),
259 – 276.
SALISBURY, M. (2002) From my death, may life come forth: A feasibility study of the woodland cemetery in
Canada. Unpublished: Masters Thesis. University of Geulph.
ULRICH, R. S. (1981) Natural versus urban scenes some psychological effects. Environment and
Behaviour, 13(5), 523 – 556.
WALTER, T. (1994) The revival of death. London: Routledge.
WIENRICH, S., & SPEYER, J. (2003) The natural death handbook. London: Rider.
WORPOLE, K. (1997) The cemetery in the city. Pembrokeshire: Eco Distribution.
WORPOLE, K. (2003) Where the dead live. Prospect Magazine, 85. Retrieved June, 2004, from http://
www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article¼11894

Biographical Notes
Andrew Clayden is a Lecturer and Landscape Architect who teaches at the Department of
Landscape University of Sheffield. His research interests include cemetery design, grave reuse, and
its potential impact on the cemetery landscape and natural burial.

Katie Dixon is a practising Landscape Architect who recently graduated from the University of
Sheffield Department of Landscape. Her Masters dissertation focused on the adoption of plants as
objects of memory.