Natural Burial - Your help with a survey.

[Steven P]

Not sure it would make the land unusable for ever more, or would protect a woodland - see a lot of old cemeteries turned over to parkland, houses or big gardens in converted churches. All the bodies have to be rehoused I believe so that means have to contact relatives for permissions where possible, but they can reuse the land. Trickier though. I might be wrong but a grave is sold as a lease, 100 years I think and then it can be reused no problem, so I suppose getting all the permissions to move a body is mostly that someone else is the lease owner of that grave and you can't do stuff to it while they still are. Natural burials and who would own the ground, if no change of ownership then the land owner could do as they want I think. Ashes far better.

[Steven P]

On 02/01/2024 at 22:28, 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.

 

Just done the survey and while I am sure the results will influence someone, as you suggest the questions are quite narrow with the answers. "Yes" and "No" answers are quite broad but adding in "Yes, but... " "No, but... " "Yes, but..." "No" answers limits what you can say if you are outside of what they thought off that we might say.