Natural Burial - Your help with a survey.

[Agent Green]

Dear All,

A colleague in their final year of their undergraduate degree studying Rural Land Management as a mature student, and completing a research dissertation on whether natural burial could assist in the management and creation of woodlands has asked me to circulate this survey. This is both from the perspective of assisting the funding of new woodlands and also burials in existing woodlands for example during beating up operations or to fund ash dieback work. The survey covers public perception on natural burials.   https://rau.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/natural-burial-as-a-diversified-income-stream-to-woodland

If anyone had 5 mins spare it would really help out if you could fill in the survey.

It does cover the subject of berevement and funerals (nothing graphic) so please only proceed if you are happy discussing such things.

My thanks for your support.

[GarethM]

I'll have a read, scattering ashes is fine in a rural location such as woodland.

 

Anything more and it's a complete no as legally speaking the land is for lack of a better word turned unusable and makes things off limits forever more.

[daltontrees]

done

 

[Peasgood]

I don't like the thing about surveys when the question gives all the negatives about doing something and then asks if you would do it. It inevitably gives a different answer or you could say it leads the answer to being what the survey wants it to be. This survey uses carbon to do this which I expected before even looking tbh.

Why not have a question that says "Research shows people visiting graves results in an extra 20 brazillion tons of carbon emissions, should people visit graves?" or "Scientists claim graveside sobbing results in more than 20% increase in CO2 due to increased respiration, should burials be unattended?"

A survey should be there to find information not to influence opinion.

[AHPP]

6 minutes ago, Peasgood said:

I don't like the thing about surveys when the question gives all the negatives about doing something and then asks if you would do it. It inevitably gives a different answer or you could say it leads the answer to being what the survey wants it to be. This survey uses carbon to do this which I expected before even looking tbh.

Why not have a question that says "Research shows people visiting graves results in an extra 20 brazillion tons of carbon emissions, should people visit graves?" or "Scientists claim graveside sobbing results in more than 20% increase in CO2 due to increased respiration, should burials be unattended?"

A survey should be there to find information not to influence opinion.

 

[Peasgood]

3 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 

Perfect example

[daveatdave]

i think it's in Greece they put a ded donkey in a hole then plant a olive or fig tree on top gives the tree some nutrients 

[GarethM]

4 minutes ago, daveatdave said:

i think it's in Greece they put a ded donkey in a hole then plant a olive or fig tree on top gives the tree some nutrients 

Saw a documentary a few years back saying in Greece it's orthodox so they have to be buried within so many days and cannot be cremated.

 

The climate is so hot and dry the bodies don't biodegrade, so the grave yards are full.

[Slicer Dicer]

Natural burial appeals to me. Not necessarily because I'm a raging environmentalist, but quite happy that my body rots back into the earth at the end and a new woodland is produced as a result (collectively speaking), especially if change of use becomes woodland for ever more than land for more houses down the line.

I'm not religious and don't like the concept of cremation so therefore seems the most obvious solution. Stick me in a cardboard/willow box/whatever shove it in the ground and plant a tree on top- happy with that.👍

[scbk]

Problem is though it takes a long time for the bones to rot down. Unless you've got a very large woodland, I would suggest putting the bodies through a chipper first.

I find this vastly aids decomposition.