The Environmental Impact of the Lands of the Dead: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

In the past 150 years, the American approach to death care has changed drastically. Using practices that I refer to as "modern traditional death care," a new industry has arisen that has normalized burial practices that once were reserved for very wealthy individuals. Today, average decedents undergo elaborate preparation processes meant to preserve them far beyond their final viewing. However, these practices may cause significant environmental damage by pollution of the soil, planting of monocultures, and stripping burial sites of indigenous flora and fauna (Loki et al., 2019). In response to the alarm raised by these methodologies, a competing practice called “natural death care” has arisen. Operating under a set of standards established by the Green Burial Council, the natural death care industry inters unembalmed corpses encased in biodegradable shrouds or coffins at a depth that facilitates their rapid decomposition (Webster, 2016). The natural death care industry’s claim that its practices promote healthier ecologies seems intuitively plausible, but it is largely untested. My thesis research collected and analyzed data that examined these claims. During the summer of 2022, I traveled across the eastern United States from mid- Florida to near the Canadian border in New York State to visit paired sets of 20 modern traditional and 20 natural burial sites of similar size, located in the same zip code if possible, and if not in close geographical proximity. I collected six soil samples from each site, which I amalgamated and tested for bulk density and organic matter. I also used a quadrat placed at predetermined intervals to collect 18 floral biodiversity samples from each site, both photographing and filming the study areas in order to record the sampled flora for quantification. In addition to field work, I used satellite data to assess and to compare the paired burial sites. These methodologies were intended to test my hypotheses that natural burial sites would demonstrate greater verdancy, higher plant diversity, more invasive floral species, a higher percentage of soil organic matter, and lower soil bulk density when compared to their modern traditional counterparts. The data collected during the course of this study was insufficient to be authoritative, but it does tend to substantiate the claim that the practices of the natural death care industry are generally better for the environment than those of the modern traditional alternative. Conversely, the modern traditional burial sites I studied did not seem to pose the level of unmitigated threat to their proximate environments that their detractors suspect. For example, while biodiversity was very high at natural sites, so was the incursion of invasive species. Modern traditional sites, while less diverse, still showed a reasonable parameter range, and with better control of invasive species. NDVI was generally higher at natural sites, but not at all times of the year. Soil carbon analyses of differences between sites was inconclusive. This research should be useful to individuals wishing to make ecologically responsible choices regarding their own remains or those of loved ones, to future researchers wishing further to explore these topics, and to policy makers weighing the relative costs and benefits of these burial paradigms as they plan future developments.