SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Sec. Land Use Dynamics
Volume 10 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565
Gardens of life: Multifunctional and ecosystem services of urban cemeteries in Central Europe and beyond—Historical, structural, planning, nature and heritage conservation aspects
- 1Integrative Research Institute THESys Transformation of Human-Environment-Systems, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- 2Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Chair of Urban Conservation and Urban Cultural Heritage, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
- 3Department of Historical Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Cemeteries are often seen as monofunctional spaces for burial and mourning and, within the dynamically changing urban fabric, as a planning conundrum. Long periods of stability have also turned these untouched and hidden places into refugia for nature and wildlife. In booming and dense cities with high land use pressures and housing shortages, in particular, as the amount of burial ground needed per citizen decreases and burial cultures change, the cemetery has become a contested nature, as a simultaneous space of emotion, commerce and community. We revisited the diversity and ontogenesis of cemeteries, and the interactions with neighboring uses of the urban matrix. Our review demonstrates a wide range of different ecosystem services of urban cemeteries, beyond potential as hotspots of culture and biodiversity. We highlight their multifunctional character and the need for a holistic and trans-disciplinary evaluation using multistakeholder approaches to further develop cemeteries as a crucial element of sustainable urban landscapes.
Due to their associations, and reflecting cultural changes in urban societies, burial grounds have always been special places within cities1. In Europe, their geographical removal from inner-city churchyards to the edges of urban settlements began in the 16th century, with the aim of reducing danger to public health. This also led to a semantic separation, “cemetery” instead of “churchyard” in the 19th century (Rugg 2000; Happe 2003). At the latest in the second half of the 19th century, cemetery planning started to focus on horticultural aesthetic design (“the garden on the grave”), and landscaped cemeteries were developed (von Zedler 1834; Happe 2003; Leisner 2005). The park cemeteries of the late 19th century combined different functions, including burial ground and public green space, thus anticipating the use of today’s abandoned burial grounds (Leisner 2005). In North America, urban cemeteries of the 19th century were originally designed as public open spaces and as attractive burial and commemoration sites (Barrett and Barrett 2002; Harvey 2006; Möller 2015).
Although today cemeteries are often barren places within the urban matrix, and seen as monofunctional spaces for burial and mourning, with their amenity values widely neglected, some studies have recognized their provision of a wide range of ecosystem services, and their importance as a part of the urban green space (Barrett and Barrett 2002; Borgstrom et al., 2006; Harvey 2006; Andersson et al., 2007). Cemeteries are thus being rediscovered as elements of urban green structure during the last decade (Quinton and Duinker 2019; Rae 2021). Their environmental benefits are partially different from other urban green space (Quinton and Duinker 2019), as they are recognized as restorative spaces for urban dweller and, at the same time, as liminal spaces between clear positions and static forms, both in discourse and in people’s everyday lives (Lai et al., 2020; Grabalov and Nordh 2022).
As urban cemeteries suffer lower disturbance frequencies and comprise more stable habitats than other green spaces, they can function as refugia for wildlife (Laske 1995; Loki et al., 2019). It was hypothesized that cemeteries in different religious contexts are promising areas for nature conservation compared to other urban land use types because their religious, historical, cultural and/or philosophical meanings protect their areas from destructive changes (Uslu et al., 2009). Other historical sites with protection status such as archeological parks and historical gardens function also as refuge for biodiversity (Ceschin et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2010; Capotorti et al., 2013; Caneva et al., 2018; Heneidy et al., 2022). Some surveys found that urban cemeteries did indeed have a higher number of plant species than similar sized parks or urban brownfields (Graf 1986), although others revealed a high proportion of non-native (Nowinska et al., 2020; Quinton et al., 2020; Walusiak and Krzton 2021) and also invasive plant species, which mainly entered from grave or hedge greeneries (Rutkovska et al., 2011) and could also spread to the surroundings (Walusiak and Krzton 2021). Horticultural history and the use of ornamentals for landscaping are widely recognized as driving the spread of exotic species from parks and gardens to neighboring land uses (Kowarik 2005; Butenschön and Säumel 2011), as non-native species regularly introduced as ornamentals can escape within cemeteries and to surroundings (Nowinska et al., 2020). Consequently, cemeteries have been addressed as model systems to study the interplay between cultural and ecological diversity (Barrett and Barrett 2002). Even so, 50 years have passed since the last published review on cemetery ecology (Thomas and Dixon 1973).
Recently, urban cemeteries have again drawn the attention of planners and local stakeholders in booming and dense cities with high land use pressures, and have become a contested nature as simultaneous space of emotion, commerce and community (Woodthorpe 2011; McClymont and Sinnett 2021; Grabalov and Nordh 2022). Two new challenges for their management need to be addressed. First, the amount of burial ground needed per citizen is changing. The burial ground area needed in Central European cities has declined sharply and, as a result of demographic changes (i.e., increasing life expectancy), disappearing religious traditions and new trends in the burial culture (e.g., cremation, private disposal of cremated remains), cemeteries are being abandoned. For example, in Berlin, Germany, a third of the cemetery areas (376 ha) will remain unused within the current decade (SenStadt 2006). In contrast, the North American “baby boomers” moving into higher mortality rates in the next decades is leading to a significant greater need for burial grounds, although the cremation rates there are also rising (Basmajian and Coutts 2010). Also in the US, an increasing demand for cemeteries close to residential areas has led to a relocation of cemeteries into neighbourhoods (Harvey 2006). Secondly, the multicultural society is leading to an increasing diversity of burial cultures (e.g., green burials, the foundation of Muslim cemeteries, and the renewal of Jewish burial traditions). The diversification of burial styles and the separation of cemetery areas to particular groups are expected to increase the need for space (Basmajian and Coutts 2010; Grabalov and Nordh 2022).
For both wildlife and heritage conservation, these changes can endanger a long-lasting habitat quality that was once protected by the original status as untouched areas. They can also, on the other hand, offer a chance to develop and strengthen cemeteries’ ecosystem services, and to reduce the isolation of these habitats within the network of urban green structures. However, to provide trans-disciplinary knowledge, valuations and practical strategies to develop cemeteries as a crucial element of sustainable urban landscapes anchored in their neighborhoods, we need an evaluation of the broad range of ecosystem services cemeteries delivered.
The aim of this paper is 1) to briefly review the cultural diversity of cemeteries within the historical context, 2) to illustrate multifunctionality and ecosystem services provided by cemeteries, 3) to describe knowledge gaps that remain, and to highlight management challenges. We contribute to answering the following questions: How do cemeteries as historical elements of urban green interact with surrounding structures? How do cemeteries balance the partially conflicting demands as cultural heritage, habitat stability for flora and fauna, and functional adaptation in a dynamically changing city? In addition, we discuss current approaches to the redesign of cemeteries.
Materials and methods
We systematically screened peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books for research on history, development and characterisation of cemeteries and on historical plant use and biodiversity of cemeteries following the PRISMA Guidelines (Page et al., 2021). To review research related to human wellbeing in urban settings, we used the concept of ecosystem services (TEEB 2011). The Web of Science, Scopus and the catalogue of Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (German National Library) were searched with combinations of keywords relating to cemetery and the main categories of ecosystem services, i.e., regulating, habitat, cultural, and provisioning ecosystem services (for details on key words see Table 1).
TABLE 1. Keywords relating to cemeteries and outcome-related key words for history, development, and characterisation, biodiversity as well as regulating, provisioning, habitat, and cultural services of cemeteries.
We thus 1) identified studies that explicitly address functions of cemeteries and 2) we searched different disciplinary databases Web of Science and Scopus, both are standard databases for natural sciences, whereas humanities still work also with monographs that are listed in the large libraries such as the German National Library. The advanced keyword search in the German National Library (last updated February 2022) resulted in 1,969 references on urban cemeteries, 1,148 references on urban cemeteries and history, development and characterization, and three references urban cemeteries and historical plant use. The advanced keyword search in Web of knowledge and Scopus (last updated February 2022) resulted in 1,724 references related to Cemetery/cemeteries in the subject areas of environmental sciences ecology, geography and architecture, of which more than eighty percent were published during the last 2 decades (Table 2). Filtering the results to exclude papers focused on technical aspects not relevant to our study resulted in 399 articles from “ecology” and “environmental sciences”. We then screened the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles, eliminating those not related to our topic. In case of doubt, we retained the article. Subsequently, we eliminated articles lacking access to the full-text version and sent requests for the most relevant ones. Finally, we performed a full-text review of the remaining articles. We further included scholarly books and other grey literature found through cross-references. The data on plant species and parks or cemeteries used in this study are compiled from work already published.
TABLE 2. Studies and scientific publications on cemeteries per year detected by the systematic keyword search (22.02.2022, see Table 1) within the German National Library and the Web of Science and Scopus.
Overview of studies
Cemeteries have always played a role in the research agenda of humanities (Woodthorpe 2011). The number of publications on history, development, and characterisation of cemeteries has increased exponentially during the last decades (e.g., Schepper-Lambers 1992; Sieber 2018), although studies on historical plant use are scarce (Table 2). In the 80 s and 90 s, cemeteries appeared in increasing numbers of papers as subjects in environmental sciences, ecology, history, geography and architecture.
Diversity of cemeteries
Burial costumes and related characteristics of cemeteries differ widely between cultures, religions and changed across time (e.g., Rugg 2000; Sörries 2003; Huang 2007; Uslu et al., 2009). Age, design, use history and localisation of cemeteries within the city strongly determined habitat characteristics and the interplay with adjacent land uses. Plant use and design of cemeteries resulted from the co-evolution of socio-economic and ecological systems, and can be addressed as socio-ecological constructs, as has been the case for gardens (Goddard et al., 2010). Different style epochs, landscape design fashions and management practices have repeatedly changed the character and functions of cemeteries (Sörries 2003; Cloke and Jones 2004).
Woody species are particularly involved in re-shaping processes of cemeteries, and can, in extreme cases, result in a “re-order by nature” after (partially) abandonment (Cloke and Jones 2004; Kowarik et al., 2016), with a higher proportion of native species (Nowinska et al., 2020). This entails numerous management challenges with regard to plant use and long-term care of trees (Quinton et al., 2020).
The plantation of native tree species (e.g., Populus spec. and Tilia spec.) that dominated Central European cemeteries till the 18th and the early 19th century (Happe 2003), was geometrically designed as a four field complex with tree lined alleys (Fischer 1996). In Hirschfeld’s “Theory of Garden Art” (1785), cemeteries were seen as “melancholic gardens” and plant use was mainly oriented by a tree habitus, such as weeping Betula pendula, Salix babylonica or Taxus bacata and other dark leaved conifers. In contrast to Hirschfeld, Sckell (1825) recommended a broader set of deciduous mainly flourishing woody species (e.g., Lonicera tartarica, Philadelphus coronarius, Syringa spec., Viburnum opulus “Roseum”; Butenschön 2011). Later, in the second half of the 19th century, cemetery design adapted landscape garden principles following North American park cemeteries (e.g., Leisner 2005). The historical plant use pattern in cemeteries from the second half of the 19th century was dominated by the use of exotic species and cultivars (Table 3; Butenschön 2011). At the beginning 20th century, reform of cemetery garden art (“Friedhofreformbewegung”) diversified cemetery habitat structures with a heterogeneous mosaic of different grave types lined by hedgerows (Schneider and Gröning 2000). A great variety of woody species resulted from the plantation of the private graves. Conifers became fashionable at the end of the 19th century, and between 30 and 50 percent of the woody species of cemeteries remaining from this epoch are evergreens (Butenschön 2011; Figure 1A).
TABLE 3. Overview of types of cemeteries in Central Europe adapted from Graf (1986), Sörries (2003).
FIGURE 1. Impressions from different cemetery types in Central Europe (see Table 3): (A) Alley-Quarter Cemeteries Berlin Neukölln; (B) the greatest European Park Cemetery Hamburg Ohlsdorf and (C) the Forest Cemetery Stahnsdorf near Berlin. Sources: EdiCitNet, Paula Firmbach (A); Sylvia Butenschön (B, C).
The cemeteries thus reflect European exotic plant use fashion of the 19th and early 20th centuries, as is known from urban parks (Butenschön and Säumel 2011). This resulted from the increasing variety of plant material available, with new imports and cultivars during the European boom years of enthusiasm for botany and gardening (Wimmer 2001), and offered new design options for landscape architects (Schmidt 2004). There is evidence that long term abandonment of these cemeteries may reduce the dominance of exotic species and cultivars (Butenschön 2011; Nowinska et al., 2020). The encroachment of abandoned cemeteries in Berlin was dominated by escapees from primarily planted species, such as Syringa vulgaris hybrids (Graf 1986). In contrast to Europe, North American cemeteries frequently contain remnants of the original vegetation and sentinel (Barrett and Barrett 2002). Barrett and Barrett (2002) postulate that cemeteries, mainly those older than 100 years, manifest increasing biotic diversity and provide a large amount of ecosystem services due to the predominant use of native species and due to the existence of remnants of old “original” vegetation patches. Still, the Halifax cemeteries originating from the 18th to the 20th century are dominated by non-native species (e.g., Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Ulmus glabra, Quinton et al., 2020).
While the design of the individual grave and plant use has changed, profound analysis is lacking (Graf 1986). The meaning of plants was relevant until the middle of the 19th century, with some plants symbols of mourning, eternity, immortality, resurrection, purity, love, others were magical or medicinal, or strongly fragrant perennials. Since the reform of cemetery garden art, however, plants have been selected primarily for their suitability as low-maintenance ground cover, semi-shade or Sun plants.
Are cemeteries permanent?
Cemeteries have been framed as a planning conundrum—a permanent land use within a dynamic land use system (Davies and Bennett 2016). Although they are often perceived as long-lasting places with a special emotional and religious significance, being affected by economic, political and generally practical changes, they too have been subject to major changes over time. This is particularly evident in the example of Berlin, where many historic cemeteries have been forced to be reduced in size, been apportioned or have been changed in other ways due to the Second World War, the division of the city, or road construction considerations. The graves of the famous philosophers Fichte and Hegel, for instance, were removed for the expansion of a street (Etzold and Türk 1993). Such developments took place not just in recent decades, they also occurred in the past, with cemeteries in the city area being abandoned and their contents rededicated to other purposes. This is how the old St. Hedwig’s churchyard in Berlin came to serve as a storage place after its closure (Etzold and Türk 1993). A cemetery established at the beginning of the 19th century on today’s Courbiereplatz was closed in 1879 after full occupancy had been reached and converted into a green space (Simon 2001). In East London in the last decades of the 19th century, after the 1884 Disused Burial Grounds Act, the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association converted disused burial grounds and cemeteries into publicly accessible green spaces and into playgrounds (Brown 2013). The dynamic nature of urban deathscape of Gdansk, which could be done for many other cities, maps different existence periods of cemeteries and diverse post-cemetery use types, often green structures but also housing, service and production (Puzdrakiewicz 2020).
Cemeteries within the urban matrix
Cemeteries, originally located at the fringes of cities on low-cost areas, near transportation corridors, were integrated into the urban fabric with city growth (Rugg 2000; Worpole 2003; Harvey 2006). Open space descriptive statistics show that cemeteries are usually smaller than parks or urban forests, and cover an area less than 10 ha (Rehackova and Pauditsova 2004). Nevertheless, they are a crucial part of scattered green spaces, which are likely to become more important for human recreation and climate regulation (Bowler et al., 2010; Nordh and Evensen 2018).
Compared to other types of urban green space, cemeteries exhibit several unique features, including long-lasting habitat stability, low use and disturbance frequency (“pointing towards eternity”; Grabalov and Nordh, 2022) and a high degree of isolation. Within the urban matrix, cemeteries function often as islands with a sharp, often walled, border. Whether this impedes or strongly reduces exchange of plant species (Nowinska et al., 2020) is unclear as data of possible ecological trap effects are missing (Löki et al., 2019). In addition, better analysis of the effects of the surroundings on the cemeteries is needed (Barrett and Barrett 2002), and the environmental impacts of cemeteries, such as ground water pollution, depend largely on the conditions in the surroundings (e.g., substrate, land relief, hydrogeological and weather conditions; Żychowski, 2012).
There is also the administrative ambiguity of cemeteries, which are recognized as part of the urban green but operated by owners (e.g., religious organisation) without strategic green infrastructure management (Kjoller 2012; Nordh and Evensen 2018). Cemeteries are thus normally less integrated into urban habitat networks and green infrastructure systems than parks and other green spaces, which have been subjected to habitat networks efforts of planners for a long time. Sympathetically managed green space networks are crucial for ecological connectivity, species and habitat conservation within the highly fragmented urban landscape to diminish isolation and sinks effects and foster ecologically functional urban landscapes (Andersson et al., 2007; Goddard et al., 2010). There is, however, evidence that cemeteries of small towns are better integrated in the green space system than previously expected (Jebavy 2009).
An important ecological impact of cemeteries is the formation of “Necrosols” when, in temperate climates, human corpses decompose during a resting time of between 15 and 25 years (Fiedler and Graw 2003). Depending on depth of burial and cemetery age, cemetery soils generally are wet and highly permeable and accumulate more total carbon, microbial biomass carbon, phosphorus and total nitrogen, larger amino acid and ammonium concentrations compared to background values, which is consistent with increasing respiration rates, net nitrogen mineralization and pH values (Hopkins et al., 2000; Charzyski et al., 2010). “Necrosols” are further characterized by the absence of natural horizons, by urban layers with sharp transitions, and large quantities of artefacts (Gerasimova et al., 2003; Sobocka 2004). The resulting patchiness of different soil types within cemeteries also determines habitat diversity and species composition, beyond design options.
The historical reasoning of the 18th and 19th centuries shows that the use of woody plants at cemeteries was primarily intended to control air pollution and to enhance urban sanitation, rather than being ornamental and symbolic (Happe 2003). A buffering and air-purifying effect of plants was also assumed to keep out the so-called “mephitic airs” and “miasmatic vapours” (“Theory of Miasma”; Steckner 1979; Happe 2003). The cultivation of certain plants on burial grounds was therefore intended to serve to protect the living from the vapors of the deceased (Steckner 1979). The role of cemeteries as pollution and disease-vector sources was also the main focus of early environmental research on cemeteries (e.g., Pacheco et al., 1991; Omeara et al., 1992). Impacts on groundwater and soils are associated with high levels of bacterial pathogens, amino acids and other organic compounds originating from the decomposition of the buried bodies passing through the soil and into the groundwater (reviewed in Żychowski, 2012). This dis-service of potential groundwater pollution by cemeteries is more often analyzed than beneficial regulating services (Figure 3). Although cemeteries are partially monitored as potential sources of groundwater pollutants, several countries do not have appropriate legal regulations with regard to this problem (Żychowski, 2012). The increasing numbers of modern “green” or natural burial sites also require groundwater vulnerability assessment, as their impact on the environment is less well understood than those of crematoria or conventional cemeteries (Kim et al., 2008). As, in order to reduce these risks, cemeteries are usually built in low permeable soils away from anaerobic conditions (Pacheco et al., 1991; Spongberg and Becks 2020; Young et al., 2002, Żychowski, 2012), water purification services by soil filtering can be neglected (Hopkins et al., 2000; Charzynski et al., 2010, Żychowski, 2012).
The generally wet soils of cemeteries also increase evapotranspiration and enhance air cooling capacity (Hopkins et al., 2000; Charzynski et al., 2010, Żychowski, 2012). In the face of climate change, the function of cemeteries as cold and fresh air generation areas has gained increasing importance in mitigating the combined effects of urban heat island effects and global warming (Bowler et al., 2010; Onishi et al., 2010; Mathey et al., 2011). Cemeteries are regularly included in modelling approaches for urban climate regulations (Kazmierczak and Carter 2010). The higher green volume density of a mainly woody species in cemeteries and other small and scattered green spaces strengthen the potential cooling effect, and may be comparable to that of larger green spaces (Mathey et al., 2011; McClymont and Sinnett 2021).
Few studies have addressed directly regulating services of cemeteries (Liu and Zhao 2011; McClymont and Sinnett 2021). One initial study modelled the ecological benefits of a Chinese cemetery, including carbon storage and removal of key air pollutants, which are highly dependent on tree species, community structure, age and growth status (Liu and Zhao 2011). Green areas are generally known to improve air quality and public health, especially woody vegetation immobilises particulates (Escobedo et al., 2011). An early comparative study on and the exposure to traffic-related air pollution and health-effects found a significantly higher prevalence of chronic bronchitis, asthma, and several other symptoms for street cleaners compared to cemetery workers in Copenhagen (Denmark), thus indirectly providing evidence on air filtration potential of cemeteries (Raaschou-Nielsen et al., 2015).
Habitat services and biodiversity
Although cemeteries have been highlighted as guardians of “intact” habitat patches in both the urban and rural landscape (Löki et al., 2019), they also include intensively and extensively managed tree and shrub patches, lawns and meadows, small wetlands, creeks and ponds, tended flower beds, tombs, vacant lots with spontaneous vegetation, promenades, alleys and small paths, build-up structures like walls or pantheons. This patchwork of different elements, ranging from more natural to highly managed areas, offers very diverse habitats. Moreover, as urban cemeteries are regularly not equipped with electric lighting and are closed at night, night in them is still dark and calm (Gerhardt 2007), so might support wildlife, although the effect of light and noise pollution on biodiversity remains widely understudied in general (Hölker et al., 2021).
Undoubtedly, cemeteries harbor a high number of species, a great proportion of rare or endangered species so have been considered “Gardens of life” (Graf 1986; Laske 1995; Reidl 1999; Löki et al., 2019; Nowinska et al., 2020). Consequently, cemeteries can play a key role in species conservation (Verschurren et al., 2010; Löki et al., 2019), and their increasing area increases the number of different habitats (Reidl 1999; Nowinska et al., 2020), and of plant (Lange and Schäfer 2001; Nowinska et al., 2020) and bird species (Morelli et al., 2018). The increasing age of the cemetery increases the number of rare and endangered species there (Tillich 2013; Nowinska et al., 2020), and the surroundings shape habitat function for plant species (Graf 1986; Nowinska et al., 2020), for breeding bird abundance (Abs et al., 2005).
Species composition of cemeteries in Stockholm, Sweden, differed from parks and allotment gardens mainly due to a few less-abundant species, but not in the overall community structure; and the assemblage of different functional groups was related to differing management practices (e.g., organic gardening practises might favour decomposers and insectivorous birds, Andersson et al., 2007).
A higher number of higher plant and fern species were reported in cemeteries than in parks of the same size (Graf 1986; Figure 2A). Analogous to parks, brownfields and gardens, size was positively related to plant species richness, which in turn may be positively correlated to land cover heterogenity and avian species (Goddard et al., 2010). A meta-analysis revealed a higher number of species per area only for a subsample of small cemeteries and parks (<1ha, N = 36; Figure 2C), but not for larger parks (0.1–200 ha, N = 129; Figure 2B). Diversity enrichment effects of cemetery habitats designed in small sections enhanced plant diversity mainly at small scale. Consistently, small to medium sized cemeteries harbored twice as many endangered and rare species than other same sized green spaces, and functioned frequently as refugia for indigenous species in inner city neigborhoods (Graf 1986). The diversity of large cemeteries was similar to parks. However, biodiversity studies were available only for a minority of urban cemeteries, and studies often included only a subset of species (Löki et al., 2019).
FIGURE 2. (A) Relationship between plant species number and area of Central European cemeteries and parks compiled from floristic studies of 42 cemeteries and 35 parks (Sources: Kunick 1978 and Kunick 1990, Graf 1986). These studies mapped presence/absence of the plant species during two vegetation periods (Graf 1986). Comparison of number of species per area for all cemeteries and parks with an area between 0.1 and 200 ha (B) and for a subsample of small cemeteries and parks with an area below 1 ha (C).
Number and types of habitats are strongly related to both types of cemeteries, and to their design and maintenance history (Cloke and Jones 2004). Cluster analysis of flora on urban cemeteries in Berlin demonstrated the role of cemetery’s age, design and plant use on plant diversity (Graf 1986). The eternal resting time of Jewish cemeteries, which is different from Christianity, combined with a low disturbance frequency and extensive management, enhanced wildlife (Buchholz et al., 2016; Kowarik et al., 2016). The characteristic old ivy-covered tree stands of these cemeteries also included habitats for wetland species, which are rare in urban environments (i.e., Salix aurita, Scutellaria galericulata or Juncus effusus). In particular, partially abandoned cemeteries of the 19th century (i.e., allee quartier cemeteries) and extensively managed woodland cemeteries with remnants of pristine vegetation harbor higher diversity and more rare species (Graf 1986).
Historical plant use patterns, especially woody species, determine structures and habitats of cemeteries and burial grounds (Graf 1986; Butenschön 2011). Tree species, community structure, age and growth status of the trees influence provision of ecological benefits. A survey on urban trees and the history of urban tree planting in arctic and near-arctic cities (i.e., Murmansk in Russia, Nuuk in Greenland, and Reykjavik in Iceland) demonstrated that grave trees were the first trees to be introduced in these cities, mainly selected by a “trial and error” strategy (McBride and Douhovnikoff 2012). The number of tree species was low (i.e., 1–6 species per cemetery, Acer pseudoplatanus, Betula pubescens and B. subarctica, Picea abies, Pinus sibirica, Salix caprea, and S. glauca and Sorbus aucuparia (McBride and Douhovnikoff 2012). This contrasted sharply with cemeteries in cities in other climatic regions. At the Ohlsdorf cemetery in Hamburg, Germany, 450 woody species2 were recorded (Westphal 2006; Schönfeld 2012). In New York City and Los Angeles, cemeteries with over 100 tree species were reported (Harpaz 2009). Arboretum-like designed cemeteries included a particularly high variety of woody species (e.g., Portland Lone Fir Cemetery, Harvey 2006). The multi-storey vertical community structure aided ecological benefit generation and the long lasting and sustainable development of the green-spaces (Liu and Zhao 2011). Consequently, cemeteries and parks are acknowledged as important habitats for the conservation of old trees in agricultural landscapes, with a higher proportion of champion trees found in cemeteries compared to other green spaces (Orlowski and Nowak 2007). This study also provided an impressive example, that of a northern white cedar surviving the huge devastation of green areas during and after the Second World War in a cemetery.
Spontaneously occurring and ruderal species establish only on abandoned grave stone areas, along pathways, on walls, at composting sites or storage areas, and consist of partially escaped ornamental species, fern, moss, lichen or nitrophilic species (Graf 1986; Nowinska et al., 2020). Gravestone areas can also harbor lichen and bryophyte communities depending on care intensity but are dominated by ground covering evergreens and conifers, frequently managed by individuals, constrained by guidelines, regulations, weed control measures and a small and seasonally changing set of planted species (Nowinska et al., 2020). Several studies on historic tombstones from different centuries observed a hidden part of biodiversity such as epilithic lichenized fungi and moses, micromycetes and cyanobacteria, which are often primary colonizers of stone (e.g., Gorbushina et al., 2002; Cuzman et al., 2011; Caneva and Bartoli 2017; Grbic et al., 2017).
Meadows are mainly situated at representative and extensions of cemeteries or between graves (Graf 1986; Laske 1995). More extensively managed meadows can harbor a highly diverse flora and fauna and serve as refugial habitat for red list species, though studies on this are scarce (Konic et al., 2021).
Some symbolic plants, old cultivars and medicinal plant species also remained as historical plant use relics (e.g., Achillea ptarmica, Aquilegia vulgaris, Tanacetum parthenium, Calendula officinalis or Papaver somniferum, Aphanes inexspectata, Digitaria sanguinalis, Setaria pumila, Stachys arvensis; Graf 1986). In addition, rare or endangered geophytes originating from different natural habitats (e.g., Gagea spec. or Tulipa sylvestris, orchids) have been reported at cemeteries (e.g., Tillich 2013; Buchholz et al., 2016; Kowarik et al., 2016; Löki et al., 2019; Konic et al., 2021).
Macromycetes are widely understudied in urban landscapes as well as in cemeteries, although fungi are important decomposers and strongly influence plant communities (but see Barrico et al., 2012; Schlecht and Säumel 2015). Fungi, ferns, moses and lichenes have been reported on cemeteries (e.g., Fortey 2000; Venne et al., 2016), though detailed studies are scarce (but see Fudali 2001; Grochowski, 2001). Moses and lichen at cemeteries were studied to control for habitat variability and pollution (e.g., Klos et al., 2008; Ciesielczuk et al., 2012).
Ornithology has long demonstrated the role of cemeteries as multifunctional habitat for birds in cities (e.g., Flade 1994; Abs et al., 2005; Tryjanowski et al., 2017; Čanády and Mošanský 2017; Morelli et al., 2018). Bird diversity increases with cemetery area, number of nesting sites, and forage opportunities. Larger cemeteries with a large-scale heterogeneity harbored a higher number of bird species than surrounding urban areas (Lussenhop 1977). A survey on Central European breeding bird species distribution among different urban land uses revealed a large crossover between key species of cemeteries, parks and gardens (Flade 1994). Urban cemeteries were also breeding grounds for highly endangered species. An example in the tropics: a cemetery in Manila (Indonesia) harbored a higher avian biodiversity including endemic and threatened species than parks (Vallejo et al., 2009). Bird species distribution depended on degree of urbanisation in cemeteries surroundings (Flade 1994). Composting sites were usually food sources for birds and, at the same time, habitat for many insects (Andersson et al., 2007).
Habitat diversity also favored herbivores, insectivores or seed dispersers and a higher total number of flowering plant species compared to parks favour pollinators (Andersson et al., 2007; Bates et al., 2011). Abundance and pollinator diversity of cemeteries were negatively associated with higher levels of urbanization (Bates et al., 2011). In Montreal and Quebec, Canada, wild bee abundance but not diversity was higher in community gardens and parks compared to cemeteries (Normandin et al., 2017). A high percentage of butterflies was reported on meadows and ruderal sites of cemeteries (Strobl and Könecke 1984). Studies on Diptera in flower vases with water demonstrated that the land use “cemetery” determined the species composition of the fly community more than the intensity of the urbanization in its surroundings, and urbanization level around a cemetery shaped some attributes of its Diptera community (Rubio et al., 2012). In addition, cemeteries in the tropics and subtropics are known to be favorable urban habitats for the proliferation of human disease vectors, and pathogenic Diptera species in cemeteries are well studied (Abe et al., 2005; Vezzani, 2007; Leisnham and Juliano 2009; Arunachalam et al., 2010). Entomofauna of cemeteries and especially collembola have been frequently studied in forensic science (e.g., Bourel et al., 2004; Merritt et al., 2007).
Cemeteries are parts of predicted corridors or stepping stones for gene flow in mammal populations between city parks in a heavily urbanized areas, for example, for small mammal populations in New York (Munshi-South 2012), and for coyotes in Boston, Massachusetts (Way and Eatough 2006). Small mammal species composition differed between gardens, cemeteries or urban woodland, with cemeteries harboring more wood mouses but less vole and shrews than allotment gardens (Baker et al., 2003). Bats, fox and hare have been reported from urban cemeteries (Graf 1986). However, studies on mammals and on reptilia in cemeteries are scarce (Tikhonova et al., 2002).
The purpose of cemeteries frequently extends beyond the need for a burial space, to being a religious and sacred place for permanence and pilgrimage, and a place for demonstrating civic pride that also provides recreational amenities. They thus possess multiple social and political meanings (Rugg 2000), and their design has high cultural significance and provides insights into society and culture (e.g., Veit and Nonestied 2008; Herman 2010). They are typical examples of heritage landscapes that are socially constructed and shaped by ritual involvement from the local community, and thus of peoples’ memories create a sense of place rather than space (Worpole 2003).
Walls, hedges, ditches and other boundary structures of cemeteries serve primarily to create atmosphere, which can be experienced in the interior as a mythical space separated from the rest of the mostly secular world (Hasse 2005). Life and death grew more separated (Worpole 2003). The modern cemetery in the mid-nineteenth century especially captured the diversification and widening of dispositional techniques of institutions and, at the same time, integrated hygienic imperatives, aesthetic-moral registers and an array of educational-civic functions, generating a model milieu for the living (Johnson 2007). Analysis of grave inscriptions over the last century indicated that, just as death was becoming more and more marginalized, society appeared to be increasingly less accepting of the finite nature of life (Anderson et al., 2011).
Cemeteries are recognised as a cultural heritage of society. Many associations promote historic cemeteries and offer, for example, guided tours of cemeteries on the Open Monument Day (Finetti 1999; Sommer 2018). Graves of notable citizens are tourist attractions, but graves of non-notable citizens also function as emotional landscapes and demonstrate diverse cultural memories (Sörries 2009; Basmajian and Coutts 2010). The presence or absence of these individuals in the cemetery landscapes depends on different commemorative practices influenced by religion, culture, gender, status and age. Apart from prehistoric and imperial tombs in China, there is only one cemetery on the UNESCO World Heritage List, the Skogskyrkogarden in Stockholm, a representative of a park cemetery (Unesco World Heritage Convention 2022). The Central Cemetery in Ljubljana, Slovenia has had a European Heritage Label list since 2007 (Sörries 2009). Work is currently underway to include the Jewish cemetery Weißensee on the World Heritage List. In a society where dying and death have largely been marginalized, cemeteries become increasingly recognized as unique cultural heritages (v. Krosigk and Gotzmann, 2007), and, in Germany, cemetery culture has been “intangible cultural heritage” since 2020.
Traditional cemeteries and alternative burial grounds potentially improve a community’s natural environment. Cemeteries have, for a long time, been recognized as open spaces. At present, many municipalities consider cemeteries part of their green infrastructure, and in some places, residents use cemeteries for recreation (Harvey 2006). A study from Oslo registered a wide set of activities within two cemeteries, where mostly adults visiting graves was just one activity among many others such as walking, biking, walking the dog, socializing or resting on benches (Evensen et al., 2017). This prompts discussion about the compatibility of diverse uses, and also of cemeteries as amenity spaces in a multicultural context, with the potential to stimulate intercultural and interreligious encounters (Swenson and Skar 2019). Cemeteries were also designed as an arboretum-like landscape used for historical plant identification, restoration and educational projects (e.g., Portland Lone Fir cemetery, Harvey 2006).
As cemeteries can also harbor (un)wanted heritage of previous communities, some necropolises have been closed and removed (e.g., Puzdrakiewicz 2020). If cemeteries are seen as an evolving cultural landscape, the preservation of historical urban burial grounds can be combined with the creation of open space by incorporating tradition into modern time-space (Cartier 1993; Huang 2007; Teather et al., 2007), perceived as a kind of in-between area of the private–public realm (Swensen and Brendalsmo 2018). The neighborhood shapes the development of residential areas and large clusters of allotments, cemeteries, or sports fields were estimated as relatively attractive for residential development, while forest, nature, and industrial areas became more attractive when present in small clusters (de Nijs and Pebesma 2010). A review of hedonic price studies of open space values for properties, including land characteristics, structural characteristics, neighborhood and environmental characteristics, underlined the importance of jointly examining multiple types of open space lands and carefully distinguishing among types of open space. Anderson and West (2006) found a positive relationship between house price and distance to cemeteries, though other cemeteries did not affect the sale prices of residential properties (Lutzenhiser and Netusil 2001; Neumann et al., 2009). The benefits of proximity to cemeteries depended on neighbourhood characteristics and location, and the amenity value of proximity to cemeteries falls as private lot size increases (Anderson and West, 2006).
This category of ecosystem services comprises benefits that can be extracted from nature, such as food, timber, water, products from domesticated species or plants that can be used as medicines. It has been argued as unlikely that cemeteries could be used for food production (McClymont and Sinnett 2021), although the authors observed a small community orchard in one of the burial places studied. Urban fruit tree mappings revealed several fruit trees, edible herbs or mushrooms for foraging at cemeteries (Mundraub, 2022; Schlecht and Säumel 2015; Buchter-Weisbrodt, 2009). Urban wild food foraging discussed also mentions cemeteries as foraging locations (McLain et al., 2013; Shackleton et al., 2017) as dogs and their contamination, a major concern of foragers, are not permitted (Landor-Yamagata et al., 2018; Brandner and Schunko 2022). Overexploitation of these resources can, however, also threaten vegetation and wildlife, as in the case of the use of orchid tubers from Turkish cemeteries for culinary purposes (Löki et al., 2019).
The original churchyards were mostly simple meadows around churches where cattle grazed, laundry dried and markets were held. The dealing with death was a task done by the neighbors of the deceased with a great variety of rituals. In the Age of Enlightenment, it became increasingly regulated, standardised and officialised (Spannhoff, 2021). In the more recent past, there is considerable evidence of fodder growing for livestock, beekeeping, plant and tree nurseries and vegetable gardens at cemeteries, at least for food supply for the pastors and grave diggers, and also in times of wars and crisis for a wider public (Jenz, 1977; Happe, 1989). The large meadows of the Parkfriedhof Berlin-Neukölln were regularly harvested by a local farmer and used for winter fodder until the 1970s; a win-win situation for the farmer and the cemetery administration (Jenz, 1977). Some of the meadows at Heidefriedhof Gatow in Berlin-Spandau have been used for extensive livestocking (Morgenroth, 2009). As public urban parks, cemeteries in the 19th century produced their own plant and tree saplings in nurseries or fir greenery for winter grave covering (Morgenroth, 2009), a tradition currently already being tested in some of the cemeteries in Berlin. Several examples of urban gardening in cemeteries (Cemetery Matzleinsdorf in Vienna, Austria; St. Elisabeth-Friedhof II in Berlin-Gesundbrunnen; Central Cemetery in Braunschweig, Germany) or in former cemeteries (St. Jacobi Berlin-Neukölln) have been reported, some involving controversy.
White spots on the map of ecosystem services provided by cemeteries
The cultural ecosystem services of cemeteries are widely recognized and studied in literature of social and historical sciences (Figure 3; Pinto et al., 2022). Nevertheless, we identified knowledge gaps and revealed that the interplay of the cultural, social, religious and natural aspects has rarely been discussed in a holistic manner crossing disciplines and diverse stakeholder perspectives. Interdisciplinary studies on cemeteries that include both the human sciences and the natural sciences are scarce. In terms of historical plant use, we have identified a gap in research on grave plantings, which presumably also follow planting fashions, but which may also have ecological consequences, as demonstrated by the frequent introduction of neophytes as ornamentals, and where more naturalistic planting and maintenance would also be more compatible with conservation goals.
FIGURE 3. Overview of studies on ecosystem services provided by urban cemeteries. The diameter of each circle is related to the number of studies identified per (dis) service.
Habitat services and the role as hotspot of phytodiversity within the urban matrix have been studied well for Central European cemeteries (Figure 3). However, a more holistic assessment of biodiversity with multi-taxon approaches beyond the often-studied plants and birds are needed to do a step forward on understanding of ecological trap or source processes of such refugia within the urban matrix. Further, there remain many questions about positive (or negative) effects of linkages with adjacent uses. For example, better linkages with other habitats may be beneficial to certain species, and cemeteries may act as stepping stones to connect biotopes while these openings threaten the refuge function for other species or might provide invasion windows e.g., from ornamentals used in grave plantings to other habitats. Addressing these knowledge gaps is necessary to integrate cemeteries more meaningfully into urban green networks and also to balance conservation, historic preservation, management, and recreational uses as gardens of life.
As regulating services are poorly studied (Figure 3), our knowledge is mostly based on transfers from results from other green structures such as parks or urban forests to cemeteries. However, the number of studies on the disservice of potential water pollution by cemeteries demonstrate that these extrapolations might be problematic at least for soil related ecosystem services. As an example, the role of these areas for rainwater infiltration is regularly excluded in studies and rainwater management of cemeteries often looks for closed loops between rainwater harvest from neighboring buildings, and collection in cisterns for use for watering plants on graves (Afla and Reza, 2012; Benden et al., 2017). In general, there is a strong dominance of studies on regulating services provided by public parks (Brzoska and Spage 2020; Pinto et al., 2022). The reason for this is certainly the accessibility of these public spaces to citizens and their dominant role in public discourses such as “parks-as-social-healers” or about the “democratic nature of parks” (Mullenbach, 2022). In addition, large structures such as urban parks are thought to have a greater impact (but see Cheng et al., 2015). However, cemeteries can be the same size as parks (Figure 2A) without becoming a prominent research subject. This shows their special role as untouchable places and is not surprising in a society that hardly deals with dying and transience. There were certainly advantages to not being in the public discourse, as natural and cultural treasures were thus kept hidden. However, these spaces are therefore also particularly vulnerable and have few defense mechanisms against claims that come from the outside. Studies on provisioning services are rare for cemeteries (Figure 3) as well as for other green structures (Pinto et al., 2022). At the very least, urban food production in public spaces became a research topic for urban green spaces in the wake of the revival of the Edible City movement in the last decade, which has also reached cemeteries (Säumel et al., 2019; Sartison and Artmann 2020; Russo and Escobedo 2022).
Cemeteries in transformation
Cemeteries appear, experience crowded times, are abandoned and sometimes disappear. Thus, Central European cemeteries also follow a type of ontogenesis as proposed for Australian cemeteries by Davies and Bennett (2016). Abandoned cemeteries regularly develop into (wild) urban forests (Cloke and Jones 2004; Nowinska et al., 2020; Quinton et al., 2020). From the biodiversity conservation perspective, cemeteries should be preserved as refugia for flora and fauna (Löki et al., 2019), and sustained with public funds, even though their owners are private organisations (Bauer et al., 2015). Care taking interventions are needed to maintain the habitat qualities that sustain the high conservation values, especially for target species (Verschuuren et al., 2010; Kowarik et al., 2016; Löki et al., 2019), but there are also for safety concerns if people explore the area on defined paths.
In dense cities with high land use pressures and low access to public green, cemeteries are increasingly used by local residents, this underlines the need for strategies for shared habitats for people and nature (Evensen et al., 2017; Swenson and Skar 2019; Straka et al., 2022). The first steps of transformations have taken place in some cemeteries, with moves towards areas of nature conservation and urban wilderness or public green with sport facilities, playgrounds or urban gardening and environmental education. However, proper evaluation of these processes is lacking (Hornbogen 2014). There are also examples of conversion to construction sites for schools or residential buildings, though cemetery associations prefer the use of cemetery land as burial grounds through adapting to the new forms of burial and mourning (Morgenroth, 2009). Fortunately, long statutory periods of rest and piety after the last burial protects cemetery land from rapid conversion, although the pressure to assign alternative uses is enormous in growing cities with a lack of affordable housing or green space in dense neighborhoods.
Ownership plays a crucial role in decision making (Basmajian and Coutts 2010). Economization of burials was intensified in the 19th century (Bähr and Hajduck 2015). The burial sector in many former socialist countries has been privatized in recent decades, and occupancy rate in the public cemeteries has decreased from over 90 to around 60 percent (Folikova Palanova and Juraka 2018; Rusu 2020). As cemeteries are predominantly financed by burial fees and the costs of communal cemeteries are partially covered by public budget, there is growing economic pressure on cemetery administrations (Morgenroth 2009; Hornbogen 2014). The changing demands for burial ground have led to decreasing income from fees, while the maintenance costs remain (Venne et al., 2016). In Germany, there is a tendency to ‘sponsor’ historically significant graves with new burials on valuable, listed older graves, and to preserve and repair high-quality surviving grave structures with the fees (Berlin 2010). Cemetery administrations provide citizen services with goals other than those of the private funeral sector, which seek profit in the multi-billion-euro death-care business (Venne et al., 2016). As in other sectors, the profit is privatized but the costs are public, although it should be highlighted that the funeral sector is still dominated by locally rooted and often family-based enterprises. Thus, a re-municipalization of some more profitable parts of the funeral business or the support of cemetery care services by the private sector has potential as a strategy to balance the costs of cemetery maintenance as a part of urban commons. The cost situation is particularly critical for cemetery operators of formerly large religious communities such as the two Christian denominations in Central Europe. Here, too, burial numbers are declining. Unlike municipal cemeteries, they receive no public support for the costly management and maintenance of these publicly accessible green spaces. On the one hand, this can lead to a very critical state of maintenance in these cemeteries, which should be avoided by supporting the owners in a nature- and monument-friendly maintenance. For economic reasons, such operators then also decide to exploit the area of former cemeteries as building land. This regularly leads to very controversial discussions about these types of transformations and illustrates the emotional dimension of the space of the cemetery.
Cemeteries remind us not only within our lifetime of previous generations of our grandparents or parents but also that we are finite and that nothing is as certain as the end of our lives. Visitors must ask themselves what remains of them. Cemeteries thus touch us directly and are sensitive spaces of farewell, inheritance and reflection ‘on the meaning of our lives’. Consequently, the transformation of cemeteries is something that touches each of us personally, and is a matter that brings together, or should bring together different needs, interest groups and institutions. Religious, economic, cultural and ecological questions have to be asked, and a consensual way of dealing with different perspectives has to be found. This requires a debate that involves as many affected groups as possible. Cemeteries are therefore also special places of gathering in a highly fragmented urban society, with a special cultural role and in terms of reverence for human life and death. It is essential to take this significance into account in the process of redesign, which is a lengthy undertaking and requires compromise on all sides. Although one of the main arguments against such redesign is the reference to the apparent immutability of these places, historical analysis shows that cemeteries have long been used for a variety of purposes besides their main purpose (burying and commemorating the deceased), and have undergone numerous changes throughout history. These concerned changes for religious, social, economic or political reasons. These changes in the past not infrequently emanated from the institutions (churches or municipalities) that were in charge of the cemeteries. Thus, above all, if reasons of reverence and (religious) dignity that could be cited against change are respectfully addressed, and the various social groups are involved in the process of redesign, it may be possible to give cemeteries a different meaning and to accommodate new interests without violating cultural and social norms.
Knowledge gaps and management challenges
As conservation biology recently started to use the multi-taxon approach to analyze habitat functions in cemetery (Kowarik et al., 2016; Löki et al., 2019), the analysis of functionalities and benefits of cemeteries needs a holistic and transdisciplinary approach across stakeholder, sectors and disciplines. Urban multi-use corridors combining burial plots and greenspaces have been proposed to protect memories of the past (Scalenghe and Pantani 2020). The rising interest in understanding the mechanisms and processes related to cemeteries within the urban matrix will help to fill knowledge gaps and to develop effective strategies to deal with the treasure that are urban cemeteries by combining the diverse perspectives (e.g., Nash 2018; Grabalov and Nordh, 2022). To date, cemetery transformation has often been in reaction to urgent pressures, and not involved informed decision making. Step by step processes, monitoring success and failure, is key to addressing concerns and satisfying the expectations of all actors. Though the social integration of the cemetery in the neighborhood can be lost over time (Harvey 2006), enhanced access and multifuntionality can reintegrate them (e.g., Swensen et al., 2016). However, multifunctionality is related to competing demands and conflicts (Klingemann, 2022), so co-creation could be key to keeping the neighborhood connected with the cemeteries, envisioning and implementing its future with all actors and avoiding that actors are unheard due to power asymmetries. Incorporating and articulating cemeteries’ intangible values, including spiritual and religious ones to politics and decision takers (McClymont 2018; Grabalov and Nordh, 2022) while maintaining cemeteries as calm, quiet, and meditative spaces (Skår et al., 2018) is a challenge.
There is no one solution fits all and, as city-wide planning approaches are limited to addressing the singularity of cemeteries and different zones within cemeteries, there is an urgent need to move from city-level plans to cemetery-specific strategic policy documents (e.g., Grabalov and Nordh, 2022). Since unplanned but deliberate planting of graves leads to arbitrary distribution of woody plants, the preservation of the specific characteristics of abandoned cemeteries is a challenge for garden heritage conservation. There are ongoing discussions between disciplines and actors about what is worth preserving, which mixture of woody plants should remain in order to maintain individual character (Butenschön and Beck 2011). Conflicts between people mourning and other users indicate that multifunctionality also has limits. Balancing between wilderness and being well-kept (Skår et al., 2018; Kowarik et al., 2016), between nature and heritage protection, between isolation and integration into the urban fabric or between different use options and actor groups, requires a higher level of maintenance than other types of urban green space (Skår et al., 2018). Expanding the multifunctionality of cemeteries requires zoning for different purposes and community learning processes to deal with tensions, culture and tolerance (Grabalov and Nordh, 2022).
Beyond the common classification into neighborhood, park, and forest cemeteries, the reality of cemeteries is very diverse with numerous hidden places, small arenas, habitats, and niches between culture and nature, sculptural and wilderness (Figure 1). All those who take a closer look at this diversity of cemeteries realize that for the transformations of cemeteries there can only be individual and no uniform solutions. Cemeteries appear to be stable in one’s lifetime, but historical studies provide not only evidence on foundation and expansion of cemeteries but also from declining demands to disappearances or renewals. Neighborhoods with a healthy mix of different generations have many advantages among them avoiding wave-like movements between above-average but also below-average demands for burial places. Long waiting periods protect cemeteries and the relatives of deceased against hasty decisions based on uncertain forecasts, thus allowing reactivation of burial activities after e.g. a period of use as a park. Moreover, cemeteries are very complex entities of the urban matrix with unknown interactions with neighboring uses, have received so far little attention from planning and natural sciences and have remained poorly studied especially regarding regulating or provisioning services. Knowledge on phytodiversity of cemeteries have been collected to a larger extent compared to other organisms, but multitaxon studies are scarce, a fact that cemeteries share with other urban green elements. In contrast, humanities have produced a much richer literature on history, development and socio-cultural functions and thus also gathered a lot of knowledge on so-called “cultural ecosystem services” provided by cemeteries without using the concept of ecosystem services. The results of the present study, in conjunction with further future work, offer the possibility of creating a reference basis for which aspects must also be taken into account in a future cemetery redesign. On the one hand, the transdisciplinary approach of such a process should be mentioned; on the other hand, it can also open up new social solution horizons that reduce potential tensions between actors and interest groups. However, a corresponding discussion in society as a whole about the significance and change of cemeteries, which takes all aspects into account equally, is only just beginning.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
All authors did the research and conceptualized the manuscript. IS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. NK and SB reviewed the manuscript.
The Living Lab in the New St. Jacoby Cemetery Berlin Neukölln was funded by the European Commission via the Horizon 2020 EdiCitNet project [grant agreement no. 77666].
We thank all our colleagues, students and stakeholder around cemeteries for fruitful discussions on the research topic of cemeteries and their faith within the urban matrix. We thank Amal Chatterjee for improving our English.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
1In this paper, we do not focus on the antique necropolises, which were located outside the city and can also be important places for biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g., Sadori et al., 2010; Haack 2017).
2The foundation of this rich stock of woody species goes back to the first cemetery director Wilhelm Cordes (1840–1917). Only a few years after the foundation of the cemetery in 1877, he bought around 57,000 trees and shrubs that the James Booth and Sons nursery sold at a favorable price before it was closed down. “The joy and longing for nature entitle especially the big cities to design cemeteries as far as possible with trees. A quiet walk under the trees, a quiet bench [ ... ] that is the general wish.” (Wilhelm Cordes, 1914) Later the cemetery purchased additional plants, but also operated its own cultivation garden with 15 greenhouses for various flowers and shrubs.
Abe, M., McCall, P. J., Lenhart, A., Villegas, E., and Kroeger, A. (2005). The Buen Pastor cemetery in Trujillo, Venezuela: Measuring dengue vector output from a public area. Trop. Med. Int. Health 10, 597–603. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01428.x
Abs, M., Simon, U., and Erfmann, M. (2005). Analyse, Nachweis und Diskussion urbaner Gradienten am Beispiel der Brutvogelwelt Berliner Friedhofe. Berl. Ornithol. Ber. 15, 156–176.
Afla, M., and Reza, M. (2012). Sustainability of urban cemeteries and the transformation of Malay burial practices in Kuala Lumpur metropolitan region. Int. J. Soc. Behav. Educ. Econ. Bus. Industrial Eng. 6, 808–829.
Anderson, S. T., and West, S. E. (2006). Open space, residential property values, and spatial context. Regional Sci. Urban Econ. 36, 773–789. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.03.007
Anderson, K. A., Sielski, C. L., Miles, E. A., and Dunfee, A. V. (2011). Gardens of stone: Searching for evidence of secularization and acceptance of death in grave inscriptions from 1900-2009. Omega (Westport) 63 (4), 359–371. doi:10.2190/OM.63.4.d
Andersson, E., Barthel, S., and Ahrné, K. (2007). Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 17 (5), 1267–1278. doi:10.1890/06-1116.1
Arunachalam, N., Tana, S., Espino, F., Kittayapong, P., Abeyewickreme, W., Wai, K. T., et al. (2010). Eco-bio-social determinants of dengue vector breeding: A multicountry study in urban and periurban Asia. Bull. World Health Org. 88 (3), 173–184. doi:10.2471/BLT.09.067892
Bähr, M., and Hajduck, T. (2015). Tod ist ihr Geschäft – die Ökonomisierung der Beerdigungspraxis im viktorianischen London. Vierteljahresschr. für Sozial- Wirtsch. 102 (4), 421–436.
Baker, P. J., Ansell, R. J., Dodds, P. A. A., Webber, C. E., and Harris, S. (2003). Factors affecting the distribution of small mammals in an urban area. Mammal. Rev. 33, 95–100. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00003.x
Barrett, G. W., and Barrett, T. L. (2002). Cemeteries as repositories of natural and cultural diversity. Conserv. Biol. 5 (6), 1820–1824. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00410.x
Barrico, L., Azul, A. M., Morais, M. C., Pereira-Coutinho, A., Freitas, H., and Castro, P. (2012). Biodiversity in urban ecosystems: Plants and macromycetes as indicators for conservation planning in the city of Coimbra (Portugal). Landsc. Urban Plan. 106, 88–102. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.02.011
Basmajian, C., and Coutts, C. (2010). Planning for the disposal of the dead. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76 (3), 305–317. doi:10.1080/01944361003791913
Bates, A. J., Sadler, J. P., Fairbrass, A. J., Falk, S. J., Hale, J. D., and Matthews, T. J. (2011). Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS One 6 (8), e23459. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023459
Bauer, J., Machatzi, B., and Schubert, M. (2015). “(K)ein Ort für die Ewigkeit?,” in Berliner Friedhöfe im Wandel. Available at: https://berlin.nabu.de/stadt-und-natur/stadtgruen/friedhoefe/24565.html (Last access September, 2022).
Benden, J., Broesi, R., Illgen, M., Leinweber, U., Lennartz, G., Scheid, C., et al. (2017). Multifunktionale Retentionsflächen. Teil 3: Arbeitshilfe fur Planung, Umsetzung und Betrieb. Köln: MURIEL Publikation.
Berlin, L. (2010). “Unter jedem Grabstein eine Weltgeschichte,” in Berliner Grabmale retten. Editors K. H. von Krosigk, G. Sturm, and P. Demandt (Berlin: Self-publisher Berlin State Monuments Office).
Borgström, S., Elmqvist, T., Angelstam, P., Alfsen-Norodom, C., and Alfsen-Norodom, C. (2006). Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. E&S. 11 (2), 16. doi:10.5751/es-01819-110216
Bourel, B., Tournel, G., Hédouin, V., and Gosset, D. (2004). Entomofauna of buried bodies in northern France. Int. J. Leg. Med. 118 (4), 215–220. doi:10.1007/s00414-004-0449-0
Bowdler, R., Hanna, S., White, J., and Knight, D. (2007). Paradise preserved. An introduction to the assessment, evaluation, conservation and management of historical cemeteries. Peterborough: English Heritage and English Nature, 48.
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., and Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 4 (10), 456. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
Brandner, A., and Schunko, C. (2022). Urban wild food foraging locations: Understanding selection criteria to inform green space planning and management. Urban Urban Green 73, 127596. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127596
Brown, T. (2013). The making of urban ‘healtheries’: The transformation of cemeteries and burial grounds in late-victorian east London. J. Hist. Geogr. 42, 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2013.05.001
Brzoska, P., and Spage, A. (2020). From city- to site-dimension: Assessing the urban ecosystem services of different types of green infrastructure. Land 9, 150. doi:10.3390/land9050150
Buchholz, S., Blick, T., Hannig, K., Kowarik, I., Lemke, A., Otte, V., et al. (2016). Biological richness of a large urban cemetery in Berlin. Results of a multi-taxon approach. Biodivers. Data J. 4, e7057. doi:10.3897/BDJ.4.e7057
Buchter-Weisbrodt, H. (2009). Obsternte auf den Friedhöfen. Germany: Landwirtschaftliches Wochenblatt.
Butenschön, S., and Beck, J. (2011). Die Gehölzbestände aufgelassener Friedhöfe. Gedanken zum gartendenkmalpflegerischen Umgang. Stadt + Grün 60 (4), 48–53.
Butenschön, S. (2011). Geschichte und Charakteristik gehölzbestandener Friedhöfe. Beispiele aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Stadt+Grün 60 (11), 22–27.
Butenschön, S., and Säumel, I. (2011). Between cultural and ecological processes: Historical plant use in communal parks in Berlin, Germany. Journal of Landscape Architecture 6, 54–67. doi:10.1080/18626033.2011.9723447
Čanády, A., and Mošanský, L. (2017). Public Cemetery as a biodiversity hotspot for birds and mammals in the urban environment of Kosice city (Slovakia). Zool. Ecol. 27 (3), 185–195. doi:10.1080/21658005.2017.1366024
Caneva, G., and Bartoli, F. (2017). Botanical planning and lichen control for the conservation of gravestones in Jewish urban cemeteries in north-eastern Italy. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 64 (1-2), 1–14. doi:10.1080/07929978.2017.1288425
Caneva, G., Cutini, M., Pacini, A., and Vinci, M. (2002). Analysis of the Colosseum's floristic changes during the last four centuries. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 136 (3), 291–311. doi:10.1080/11263500212331351199
Caneva, G., Benelli, F., Bartoli, F., and Cicinelli, E. (2018). Safeguarding natural and cultural heritage on Etruscan tombs (La Banditaccia, Cerveteri, Italy). Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei. 29 (4), 891–907. doi:10.1007/s12210-018-0730-7
Capotorti, G., Del Vico, E., Lattanzi, E., Tilia, A., and Celesti-Grapow, L. (2013). Exploring biodiversity in a metropolitan area in the Mediterranean region: The urban and suburban flora of Rome (Italy). Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 147 (1), 174–185. doi:10.1080/11263504.2013.771715
Cartier, C. L. (1993). Creating open space: Cemetery as an evolving cultural landscape. Creating historic open space in Melaka. Geographical Review 83 (4), 359–373. doi:10.2307/215820
Ceschin, S., Cancellieri, L., Caneva, G., and Battisti, C. (2012). Size area, patch heterogeneity and plant species richness across archaeological sites of Rome: Different patterns for different guilds. Vie Milieu 62, 165–171.
Charzyński, P., Bednarek, R., and Sołnowskaet, B. (2010). “Characteristics of the soils of toruń cemeteries 2010 19th world congress of soil science,” in Soil solutions for a changing world 1 – 6 august 2010 (Brisbane, Australia: Published on DVD).
Cheng, X., Wei, B., Chen, G., Li, J., and Song, C. (2015). Influence of park size and its surrounding urban landscape patterns on the park cooling effect. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 141, 141. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000256
Ciesielczuk, T., Olszowski, T., Prokop, M., and Klos, A. (2012). Application of mosses to identification of emission sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons/Wykorzystanie mchów do identyfikacji źródeł emisji wielopierścieniowych węglowodorów aromatycznych. Ecological chemistry and Engineering Chemia i Inzynieria Ekologiczna 19 (4), 585–595. doi:10.2478/v10216-011-0041-8
Clayden, A., and Woudstra, J. (2003). Some European approaches to twentieth-century cemetery design: Continental solutions for British dilemmas. Mortality 8 (2), 189–208. doi:10.1080/1357627031000087424
Cloke, P., and Jones, O. (2004). Turning in the graveyard: Trees and the hybrid geographies of dwelling monitoring and resistance in a Bristol cemetery. Cultural Geographies 11 (3), 313–341. doi:10.1191/1474474004eu300oa
Coutts, C., Basmajian, C., and Chapin, T. (2011). Projecting landscapes of death. Landscape and Urban Planning 102 (4), 254–261. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.005
Cuzman, O. A., Tiano, P., Ventura, S., and Frediani, P. (2011). “Biodiversity on stone artifacts,” in The importance of biological interactions in the study of biodiversity, 367–390.
Davies, P. J., and Bennett, G. (2016). Planning, provision and perpetuity of deathscapes - past and future trends and the impact for city planners. Land Use Policy 55, 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.029
de Nijs, T., and Pebesma, E. (2010). Estimating the influence of the neighbourhood in the development of residential areas in The Netherlands. Environ. Plann. B. Plann. Des. 37 (1), 21–41. doi:10.1068/b35021
Dixon, R. A. (1974). “Cemetery ecology,” in Wildlife in an urbanizing environment: Monograph. Massachusetts cooperative extension service. Editors J. H. Noyes, and D. R. Progulske (Amherst, Mass: University of Massachusetts).
Długonski, A., Dushkova, D., and Haase, D. (2022). Urban cemeteries—places of multiple diversity and challenges. A case study from Lodz (Poland) and Leipzig (Germany). Land 11, 677. doi:10.3390/land11050677
Dunk, J., and Rugg, J. (1994). The management of old cemetery land. Crayford: Shaw and Sons.
Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., and Wagner, J. E. (2011). Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution 159 (8-9), 2078–2087. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010
Etzold, A., and Türk, W. (1993). Der Dorotheenstädtische Friedhof. Die Begräbnisstätten an der Berliner Chausseestraße. Berlin: Links.
Evensen, K., Nordh, H., and Skaar, M. (2017). Everyday use of urban cemeteries: A Norwegian case study. Landscape and Urban Planning 159, 76–84. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.019
Feder, J. (2001). Die Farn- und Blütenpflanzen der Friedhöfe in Bremen 45/1:063.
Fekete, R., Löki, V., Urgyán, R., Süveges, K., Lovas-Kiss, Á., Vincze, O., et al. (2019). Roadside verges and cemeteries: Comparative analysis of anthropogenic orchid habitats in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ecol. Evol. 22 (911), 6655–6664. doi:10.1002/ece3.5245
Fiedler, S., and Graw, M. (2003). Decomposition of buried corpses, with special reference to the formation of adipocere. Naturwissenschaften 90 (7), 291–300. doi:10.1007/s00114-003-0437-0
Finetti, M. (1999). “Friedhofsführungen: Der letzte Schrei,” in Zeit online, 30. Oktober 1999 Available at: https://www.zeit.de/1992/45/friedhofsfuehrungen-der-letzte-schrei (Access 10 23, 2018).
Fischer, N. (1996). Vom Gottesacker zum Krematorium: eine Sozialgeschichte der Friedhöfe in Deutschland seit dem 18. Jahrhundert (Kulturstudien, Sonderband, Bd. 17). Köln et al.: Böhlau.
Flade, M. (1994). Die Brutvogelgemeinschaften Mittel- und Norddeutschlands. Grundlagen für den Gebrauch vogelkundlicher Daten in der Landschaftsplanung. Eching: IHW Verlag.
Folíková Palánová, K., and Juraka, O. (2018). Sustainability of existing areas of historic cemeteries in the city organism: A Czech case study. IOP Conf. Ser, Earth Environ. Sci. 143, 012052. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/143/1/012052
Fortey, R. (2000). Old churchyards as fungal conservation areas. Field Mycology 1 (4), 121–123. doi:10.1016/s1468-1641(10)60063-1
Fudali, E. (2001). The ecological structure of the bryoflora of Wrocław’s parks and cemeteries in relation to their localization and origin. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 70, 229–235. doi:10.5586/asbp.2001.030
Galera, H., Sudnik-Wójcikowska, B., and Lisowska, M. (1993). Flora cmentarzy lewobrze Gnej Warszawy na tle flory miasta. Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 38 (1), 237–261.
Gerasimova, M. I., Stroganova, M., Mozharova, N., and Prokofieva, T. (2003). ‘Anthropogenic soils’. Oecumene. Smolensk.
Gerhardt, A. (2007). Ex-klusive’ Orte und normale Räume. Versuch einer soziotopologischen Studie am Beispiel des öffentlichen Friedhofs. Norderstedt: Selbstverlag.
Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., and Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology Evolution 25, 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gorbushina, A. A., Lyalikova, N. N., Vlasov, D. Y., and Khizhnyak, T. V. (2002). Microbial communities on the monuments of Moscow and St. Petersburg: Biodiversity and trophic relations. Mikrobiologiia 71 (3), 409–417. doi:10.1023/a:1015823232025
Grabalov, P., and Nordh, H. (2022). The future of urban cemeteries as public spaces: Insights from Oslo and Copenhagen. Planning Theory Practice 23, 81–98. doi:10.1080/14649357.2021.1993973
Graf, A. (1986). Flora und Vegetation der Friedhöfe in Berlin (West). Dissertation an der TUB - Inst. f. Ökologie. Veröff. Verh. Berl. Bot. Ver. 5, 1–211. Available at: https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Verh-Bot-Ver-Berlin-Brandenburg_120_0001-0211.pdf.
Grbić, M. L., Simić, G. S., Stupar, M., Jelikić, A., Sabovljević, M., Đorđević, M., et al. (2017). Biodiversity's hidden treasure: Biodeteriorated archaeological tombstones of Serbia. Current Science 112, 25. doi:10.18520/cs/v112/i02/304-310
Grochowski, P. (2001). Porosty cmentarza w Bogusławiu (północno-zachodnia Polska) the lichens of cemetery in Bogusław village (Western Poland). Fragm. Florist. Geobotanica Polonica 8, 231–235.
Haack, M. L. (2017). “Ritual and cults, 250-89 BCE,” in Etruscology. Editor A. Nasso (Berlin: de Gruyter), 1203–1214.
Happe, B. (1989). Der Friedhof im 19. Jahrhundert - ein stimmungsvoller Park? Korrektur eines liebgewordenen Bildes. Beiträge zur Volkskunde Baden-Württemberg 4, 67–87.
Happe, B. (2003). “Ordnung und Hygiene. Friedhöfe in der Aufklärung und die Kommunalisierung des Friedhofswesens,” in Raum für Tote, die Geschichte der Friedhöfe von den Gräberstraßen der Römerzeit bis zur anonymen Bestattung. Editor N. Fischer (Braunschweig: Thalacker, 83–110.
Harpaz, B. (2009). Tombstone tours: Check out these famous cemeteries. New York: Associated Press. 10/10/2009.
Harvey, T. (2006). Sacred spaces, common places: The cemetery in the contemporary American city. Geographical Review 96, 295–312. doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2006.tb00054.x
Hasse, J. (2005). Zur sepulkralkulturellen Bedeutung räumlicher Grenzen auf Friedhöfen. Ausgehend vom Beispiel der Friedhöfe für ertrunkene Seeleute. Geographische Zeitschrift 93 (4), 221–236.
Heneidy, S. Z., Al-Sodany, Y. M., Bidak, L. M., Fakhry, A. M., Hamouda, S. K., Halmy, M. W., et al. (2022). Archeological sites and relict landscapes as refuge for biodiversity: Case study of Alexandria city, Egypt. Sustainability 14 (4), 2416. doi:10.3390/su14042416
Herman, A. (2010). Death has a touch of class: Society and space in brookwood cemetery, 1853-1903. Journal of Historical Geography 36 (3), 305–314. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2009.11.001
Hölker, F., Bolliger, J., Davies, T. W., Giavi, S., Jechow, A., Kalinkat, G., et al. (2021). 11 pressing research questions on how light pollution affects biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 767177. doi:10.3389/fevo.2021.767177
Hopkins, D. W., Wiltshire, P. E. J., and Turner, B. D. (2000). Microbial characteristics of soils from graves: An investigation at the interface of soil microbiology and forensic science. Applied Soil Ecology 14, 283–288. doi:10.1016/s0929-1393(00)00063-9
Hornbogen, M. L. (2014). Heute Friedhof. Morgen Wohngebiet? Fallstudie Berlin zur Friedhofsentwicklung in der Stadtplanung. Schriftenreihe ISR Impulse Online 57. doi:10.14279/depositonce-4931
Huang, S. L. (2007). Intentions for the recreational use of public landscaped cemeteries in Taiwan. Landscape Research 32 (2), 207–223. doi:10.1080/01426390701231614
Jebavy, M. 2009. The landscape around the new navigation lock on the river Labe in Prelouc. Journal of Landscape Studies 2:27–32.
Jenz, H. (1977). Der Friedhof als stadtgeographisches Problem der Millionenstadt Berlin. Germany: Verlag: Geographisches Institut FU Berlin.
Johnson, P. (2007). The modern cemetery: A design for life. Social Cultural Geography 9 (7), 777–790. doi:10.1080/14649360802383154
Kazmierczak, A., and Carter, J. (2010). Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure. University of Manchester Library. Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/16880.
Kim, K. H., Hall, M. L., Hart, A., and 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 1, 1–12. doi:10.1080/09593330802008404
Kjøller, C. P. (2012). Managing green spaces of the deceased: Characteristics and dynamics of Danish cemetery administrations. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 11 (3), 339–348. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.002
Klingemann, H. (2022). Cemeteries in transformation – a Swiss community conflict study. Urban For. Urban Green. 76, 127729. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127729
Klos, A., Raifur, M., Ciesielczuk, T., Waclawek, M., and Waclawek, W. (2008). Lichen utilization for estimation of heavy metals contamination in forest areas. Ecological Chemistry and Engineering 15, 77–84. doi:10.1007/s11270-011-0830-9
Konic, J., Essl, F., and Lenzner, B. (2021). To care or not to care? Which factors influence the distribution of early-flowering geophytes at the Vienna central cemetery (Austria). Sustainability 13, 4657. doi:10.3390/su13094657
Kowarik, I., Buchholz, S., von der Lippe, M., and Seitz, B. (2016). Biodiversity functions of urban cemeteries: Evidence from one of the largest jewish cemeteries in Europe. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 19, 68–78. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.023
Kowarik, I. (2005). “Urban ornamentals escaped from cultivation,” in Crop ferality and volunteerism. Editor J. Gressel (Boca Raton: CRC Press), 97–121.
Kunick, W. (1978). Flora und Vegetation städtischer Parkanlagen. Acta botanica slovaca Acad. Sei. slovacae, ser. A 3, 455–461.
Kunick, W. (1990). Flora und Vegetation städtischer Parkanlagen - Bestand. Bedeutung und Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten VBBV 8 (123), 5–19.
Lai, K. Y., Sarkar, C., Sun, Z., and Scott, I. (2020). Are greenspace attributes associated with perceived restorativeness? A comparative study of urban cemeteries and parks in Edinburgh, Scotland. Urban Forest. Urban Green 53, 126720. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126720
Landor-Yamagata, J. L., Kowarik, I., and Fischer, L. K. (2018). Urban foraging in Berlin: People, plants and practices within the metropolitan green infrastructure. Sustainability 10, 1873. doi:10.3390/su10061873
Lange, U., and Schäfer, E. (2001). Flora und Vegetation der Friedhöfe im Stadtgebiet von Fulda unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seltener. Arten – Beiträge zur Naturkunde in Osthessen 37, 65–78.
Laske, D. (1995). Friedhöfe-Ökologische Nischen und heitere Ruhegärten. Naturw. Rdsch. 48 (9), 343–349.
Leisner, B. (2005). “Ästhetisierung der Friedhöfe. Die amerikanische Parkfriedhofsbewegung und ihre Übernahme in Deutschland,” in Nekropolis: der Friedhof als Ort der Toten und der Lebenden (Irseer Dialoge). Editors N. Fischer, and M. Herzog Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 59–78.
Leisnham, P. T., and Juliano, S. A. (2009). Spatial and temporal patterns of coexistence between competing Aedes mosquitoes in urban Florida. Oecologia 160 (2), 343–352. doi:10.1007/s00442-009-1305-1
Liu, W. S., and Zhao, L. S. (2011). Study on Ecological Benefits of Baoxiangshan Cemetery Green-space in Kunming Northern Horticulture, 3, 113–116.
Löki, V., Deák, B., Lukács, A. B., and Molnár, V. A. (2019). Biodiversity potential of burial places – a review on the flora and fauna of cemeteries and churchyards. Global Ecology and Conservation 18, e00614. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00614
Lussenhop, J. (1977). Urban cemeteries as bird refuges. The Condor 79 (41), 456–461. doi:10.2307/1367725
Lutzenhiser, M., and Netusil, N. R. (2001). The effect of open spaces on a home's sale price. Contemp. Econ. Policy 19 (3), 291–298. doi:10.1093/cep/19.3.291
Mathey, J., Rößler, S., Lehmann, I., and Bräuer, A. (2011). “Urban green spaces: Potentials and constraints for urban adaptation to climate change,” in Resilient cities. Local sustainability. Editor K. Otto-Zimmermann (Dordrecht: Springer), Vol. 1. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0785-6_47
McBride, J. R., and Douhovnikoff, V. (2012). Characteristics of the urban forests in arctic and near-arctic cities. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 11, 113–119. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.007
McClymont, K., and Sinnett, D. (2021). Planning cemeteries: Their potential contribution to green infrastructure and ecosystem services. Front. Sustain. Cities 3, 789925. doi:10.3389/frsc.2021.789925
McClymont, K. (2018). They have different ways of doing things: Cemeteries, diversity and local place attachment. Journal of Intercultural Studies 39 (3), 267–285. doi:10.1080/07256868.2018.1459519
McLain, R. J., Hurley, P. T., Emery, M. R., and Poe, M. R. (2013). Gathering “wild” food in the city: Rethinking the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and management. Local Environment 19, 841659. doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.841659
McPherson, E. G., and Nilon, C. (1987). A habitat suitability index model for gray squirrel in an urban cemetery. Landscape Jrnl. 6, 21–30. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00410.x/full
Merritt, R. W., Snider, R., De Jong, J. L., Benbow, M. E., Kimbirauskas, R. K., and Kolar, R. E. (2007). Collembola of the grave: A cold case history involving arthropods 28 Years after death. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52, 1359–1361. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00568.x
Möller, A. (2015). “Das andere New York,” in Friedhöfe, Freiräume und Vergnügungen (Bielefeld: Trancript), 1790–1860.
Morelli, F., Mikula, P., Benedetti, Y., Bussière, R., and Tryjanowski, P. (2018). Cemeteries support avian diversity likewise urban parks in European cities: Assessing taxonomic, evolutionary and functional diversity. Urban For. Urban Green 36, 90–99. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.011
Morgenroth, A. (2009). Inwertsetzung von. Friedhofsüberhangflächen. Beispiele für Folgenutzungen. Hrsg-Aeternitas e.V. Königswinter. Available at: https://www.aeternitas.de/inhalt/downloads/studie_ueberhangflaechen.pdf.
Morrison, A. C., Sihuincha, M., Stancil, J. D., Zamora, E., Astete, H., Olson, J. G., et al. (2006). Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) production from non-residential sites in the amazonian city of iquitos, Peru. Annals of Tropical Medicine Parasitology 100, S73–S86. doi:10.1179/136485906X105534
Mullenbach, L. (2022). Critical discourse analysis of urban park and public space development. Cities 120 (2), 103458. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103458
Mundraub (2022). Available at: www.mundraub.org (Last access in September, 2022).
Munshi-South, J. (2012). Urban landscape genetics: Canopy cover predicts gene flow between white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) populations in New York city. Mol Ecol 21 (6), 1360–1378. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05476.x
Nash, A. (2018). ‘That this too, too solid flesh would melt…’: Necrogeography, gravestones, cemeteries, and deathscapes. Progress in Physical Geography Earth and Environment 42 (5), 548–565. doi:10.1177/0309133318795845
Neumann, B. C., Boyle, K. J., and Bell, K. P. (2009). Property price effects of a national wildlife refuge: Great meadows national wildlife refuge in Massachusetts. Land Use Policy 26, 1011–1019. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.008
Nordh, H., and Evensen, K. H. (2018). Qualities and functions ascribed to urban cemeteries across the capital cities of Scandinavia. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 33, 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.026
Normandin, É., Vereecken, N. J., Buddle, C. M., and Fournier, V. (2017). Taxonomic and functional trait diversity of wild bees in different urban settings. PeerJ 5, e3051. doi:10.7717/peerj.3051
Nowińska, R., Czarna, A., and Kozłowska, M. (2020). Cemetery types and the biodiversity of vascular plants–A case study from south-eastern Poland. Urban For. Urban Green 49, 126599. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126599
O'Meara, G. F., Gettman, A. D., Evans, L. F., and Scheel, F. D. (1992). Invasion of cemeteries in Florida by Aedes albopictus. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 8 (1), 1–10.
Onishi, A., Cao, X., Ito, T., Shi, F., and Imura, H. (2010). Evaluating the potential for urban heat-island mitigation by greening parking lots. Urban For Urban Green 9, 323–332. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2010.06.002
Orłowski, G., and Nowak, L. (2007). The importance of marginal habitats for the conservation of old trees in agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 79, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.005
Pacheco, A., Mendes, J. M. B., Martins, T., Hassuda, S., and Kimmelmann, A. A. (1991). Cemeteries- A potential risk to groundwater. Water Science and Technology 24, 97–104. doi:10.2166/wst.1991.0341
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 10, 89. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Pinto, L. V., Inácio, M., Santos Ferreira, C. S., Dinis Ferreira, A., and Pereira, P. (2022). Ecosystem services and well-being dimensions related to urban green spaces – a systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society 85, 104072. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2022.104072
Pons, M., Sans, K., Gomez, M., and Calliari, D. (2008). Evaluation of Culex pipiens larvae control by cyclopoid copepods in an urban cemetery of Montevideo, Uruguay. Journal of Vector Ecology 33 (1), 212–215. doi:10.3376/1081-1710(2008)33[212:eocplc]2.0.co;2
Puzdrakiewicz, K. (2020). Cemeteries as (un)wanted heritage of previous communities. An example of changes in the management of cemeteries and their social perception in Gdańsk, Poland. Landscape Online 86, 1–26. doi:10.3097/LO.202086
Quinton, J. M., and Duinker, P. N. (2019). Beyond burial: Researching and managing cemeteries as urban green spaces, with examples from Canada. Environ. Rev. 27, 252–262. doi:10.1139/er-2018-0060
Quinton, J. M., Duinker, P. N., Steenberg, J. W. N., and Charles, J. D. (2020). The living among the dead: Cemeteries as urban forests, now and in the future. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 48, 126564. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126564
Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Beelen, R., Wang, M., Hoek, G., Andersen, Z. J., Hoffmann, B., et al. (2015). Particulate matter air pollution components and risk for lung cancer. Environ. Int. 87, 66–73. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.007
Rae, R. A. (2021). Cemeteries as public urban green space: Management, funding and form. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 61, 127078. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127078
Reháčková, T., and Pauditšová, E. (2004). Evaluation of urban green spaces in Bratislava. Boreal Env. Res. 9, 469–477.
Reidl, K. (1999). “Friedhöfe spezielle Siedlungsbiotope,” in Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege Editors Konold, W., Böcker, R., Hampicke, U. (Landsberg am Lech: ecomed/Weinheim: Wiley-VCH). doi:10.1002/9783527678471.hbnl1999005
Reidl, K., and Schmidt, A. (1989). Naturschutz auf dem Friedhof'. Sönderveroffentlichung der Landesanstalt fur Ökologie, Landschaftsentwicklung und Forstplanug NRW.
Rubio, A., Bellocq, M. I., and Vezzani, D. (2012). Community structure of artificial container-breeding flies (insecta: Diptera) in relation to the urbanization level. Landscape and Urban Planning 105 (3-4), 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.01.009
Rugg, J. (1998). A few remarks on modern sepulture’: Current trends and new directions in cemetery research. Mortality 3, 111–128. doi:10.1080/713685888
Rugg, J. (2000). Defining the place of burial: What makes a cemetery a cemetery? Mortality 5, 259–275. doi:10.1080/713686011
Russo, A., and Escobedo, F. J. (2022). From smart urban forests to edible cities: New approaches in urban planning and design. Urban Plan. 7, 131–134. doi:10.17645/up.v7i2.5804
Rusu, M. S. (2020). The privatization of death: The emergence of private cemeteries in Romania’s postsocialist deathscape. Southeast Eur. Black Sea Stud. 20 (4), 571–591. doi:10.1080/14683857.2020.1845471
Rutkovska, S., Pučka, I., and Novicka, I. (2011). “Analysis of invasive flora in cemetery territories of the city of Daugavpils. Environment. Technology. Resources,” in Proceedings of the 8th international scientific and practical conference. Available at: https://wwws.ru.lv/index.php/ETR/article/view/1001/1087.
Säumel, I., Reddy, S. E., and Wachtel, T. (2019). Edible city solutions—one step further to foster social resilience through enhanced socio-cultural ecosystem services in cities. Sustainability 11 (4), 972. doi:10.3390/su11040972
Sadori, L., Mercuri, A. M., and Mariotti Lippi, M. (2010). Reconstructing past cultural landscape and human impact using pollen and plant macroremains. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 144 (4), 940–951. doi:10.1080/11263504.2010.491982
Sartison, S., and Artmann, M. (2020). Edible cities – An innovative nature-based solution? Impacts, drivers and constraints of implementation based on the example of Germany. Urban For. Urban Green. 49, 126604. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126604
Scalenghe, R., and Pantani, O. L. (2020). Connecting existing cemeteries saving good soils (for livings). Sustainability 12, 93. doi:10.3390/su12010093
Schepper-Lambers, F. (1992). Beerdigungen und Friedhöfe im 19. Jahrhundert in Münster. Beiträge zur Volkskultur in Nordwestdeutschland, 73. Münster: Coppenrath.
Schlecht, M. T., and Säumel, I. (2015). Wild growing mushrooms for the edible city? Cadmium and lead content in edible mushrooms harvested within the urban agglomeration of Berlin, Germany. Environmental Pollution 204, 298–305. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.05.018
Schmidt, E. (2004). Abwechslung im Geschmack: Raumbildung und Pflanzenverwendung beim Stadtparkentwurf. Zittau: Graphische Werkstätten.
Schneider, U., and Gröning, G. (2000). Anmerkungen zur »Friedhofsreformbewegung«. Die gartenkünstlerische Diskussion um die neuzeitliche Friedhofsgestaltung vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Die Gartenkunst 12 (2), 326–345.
Schönfeld, H. (2012). Bäume von Ohlsdorf. Bremen: Edition Temmen, 263.
SenStadt (2006). SenStadt (Berliner Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung). Friedhofsentwicklungsplan. Available at: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/natur-und-gruen/stadtgruen/friedhoefe-und-begraebnisstaetten/friedhofsentwicklungsplan/.
Shackleton, C. M., Hurley, P. T., Dahlberg, A. C., Emery, M. R., and Nagendra, H. (2017). Urban foraging: A ubiquitous human practice overlooked by urban planners, policy, and research. Sustainability 9 (10), 1884. doi:10.3390/su9101884
Sieber, D. G. (2018). Der konfessionelle Gottesacker. Katholische und protestantische Sepulkralkultur in den oberschwäbischen Reichsstädten in der Frühen Neuzeit. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg, Reihe B. Forschungen, 214. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Simon, Ch (2001). Eine Chronik. Berliner Stadtteile, Bd., 1. Berlin: Wedding. 750 Jahre Wedding.
Skår, M., Nordh, H., and Swensen, G. (2018). Green urban cemeteries: More than just parks. J. Urbanism Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 11 (3), 362–382. doi:10.1080/17549175.2018.1470104
Sobocka, J. (2004). “Necrosol as a new anthropogenic soil type,” in Soil science and conservation research institute: Bratislava ‘proceedings, soil anthropization VII’. Editor J. Sobocka, 107–112.
Sommer, F. (2018). “Seifenblasen über Grabsteinen. Die Friedhofsführung mit der »SchwarzenWitwe« stößt auf großes Interesse,” in Onlineausgabe der Frankfurter Rundschau. Available at: www.fr.de/rhein-main/offenbach-seifenblasen-ueber-grabsteinen-a-1601350 (Access 10 23, 2018).
Sörries, R. (2003). Raum für Tote: Die geschichte der Friedhöfe von den Gräberstraßen der Römerzeit bis zur anonymen Bestattung. Braunschweig: Thalacker-Medien.
Sörries, R. (2009). Ruhe sanft. Kulturgeschichte des Friedhofs. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker.
Spannhoff, Ch. (2021). Zwischen Schmerz und Feier. Trauerrituale und Begräbnisformen heute und gestern. Graugold. Mag. für Alltagskultur 1, 34–43.
Spongberg, A. L., and Becks, P. M. (2020). Inorganic soil contamination from cemetery leachate. Water Air and Soil Pollution 117, 313–327. doi:10.1023/a:1005186919370
Steckner, C. (1979). “Über die Luftangst. Chemische Anmerkungen zum Tod,” in Wie die Alten den Tod gebildet. Wandlungen der Sepulkralkultur 1750-1850 (Kasseler Studien zur Sepulkralkultur, Bd. 1). Editor H. Boehlke (Mainz: Hase und Koehler. 147–150.
Straka, T. M., Mischo, M., Petrick, K. J. S., and Kowarik, I. (2022). Urban cemeteries as shared habitats for people and nature: Reasons for visit, comforting experiences of nature, and preferences for cultural and natural features. Land 11, 1237. doi:10.3390/land11081237
Strobl, P., and Könecke, F. W. (1984). Die Schmetterlinge des Stendaler Friedhofes. Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte 28 (1), 9–11.
Swensen, G., and Brendalsmo, J. (2018). Churchyards and cemeteries throughout the centuries – praxis and legislation. Landscape History 39 (1), 87–102. doi:10.1080/01433768.2018.1466551
Swensen, G., Nordh, H., and Brendalsmo, J. (2016). A green space between life and death – A case study of activities in gamlebyen cemetery in Oslo, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Nor. J. Geogr. 70 (1), 41–53. doi:10.1080/00291951.2015.1102169
Swensen, G., and Skar, M. (2019). Urban cemeteries’ potential as sites for cultural encounters. Mortality 24 (3), 333–356. doi:10.1080/13576275.2018.1461818
Tan, K., Tsounis, G., and Tsounis, L. (2010). Micromeria acropolitana (Lamiacea) rediscovered in Athens (Greece). Phytol Balcan 16, 237–242.
Teather, E. K., Tii, H. U., and Kim, E. H. (2007). Seoul's deathscapes: Incorporating tradition into modern time-space intentions for the recreational use of public landscaped cemeteries in taiwan. Landscape Research 32, 207–223. doi:10.1080/01426390701231614
TEEB (2011). TEEB manual for cities: Ecosystem services in urban management. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Geneva: TEEB.
Thomas, J. W., and Dixon, R. A. (1973). Cemetery ecology. Natural History 82 (3), 60–67.
Tikhomirova, I. N., and Tobias, A. V. (1994). Survey of fungi occurring in Volkovo and Novodevichie cemeteries (St-Petersburg). Mikologiya i fitopatologiya 28, 34–44.
Tikhonova, G. N., Tikhonov, I. A., Bogomolov, P. L., and Surov, A. V. (2002). Factors determining formation of small mammal populations in urban cemeteries. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal 81 (5), 617–627.
Tillich, H. J. (2013). Friedhöfe als Refugium für seltene Arten und Startplatz für Neophyten. Decheniana 166, 37–42.
Tryjanowski, P., Morelli, F., Mikula, P., Krištín, A., Indykiewicz, P., Grzywaczewski, G., et al. (2017). Bird diversity in urban green space: A large-scale analysis of differences between parks and cemeteries in central Europe. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 27, 264–271. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.08.014
Unesco World Heritage Convention (2022). Unesco world heritage convention. online available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/558.
Uslu, A., Bari, E., and Erdogan, E. (2009). The distribution, abundance and diversity of birds in Manila's last greenspaces. Landscape and Urban Planning 4 (13), 1505–1511.
v. Krosigk, K. H., and Gotzmann, I. (2007). Historische Friedhöfe in Deutschland. Bund Heimat und Umwelt in Deutschland BHU. Bonn, Bonn: Selbstverlag.
Vallejo, B., Aloy, A. B., and Ong, P. (2009). Distribution, abundance and diversity of birds in Manila's last greenspaces. Landscape and Urban Ecology 89, 75–85. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.013
Veit, R. F., and Nonestied, M. (2008). New Jersey cemeteries and tombstones: History in the landscape. Rutgers University Press, 324p.
Venne, M., Güß, K., Friedrich, J., and Venne, A. (2016). Öffentliche Leistungen und Funktionen aktiver Friedhöfe. DBU-Forschungsprojekt Az.29884 Forschungsbericht. Available at: https://www.dbu.de/OPAC/ab/DBU-Abschlussbericht-AZ-29884.pdf.
Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., McNeely, J., and Oviedo, G. (2010). Sacred natural sites: Conserving nature and culture. London Washington D.C: Earthscan.
Vezzani, D. (2007). Review: Artificial container-breeding mosquitoes and cemeteries: A perfect match. Tropical Medicine International Health 12 (2), 299–313. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01781.x
von Zedler, L. (1834). “Kirchhöfe,” in Neuestes Conversations-Handbuch für Berlin und Potsdam zum täglichen Gebrauch der Einheimischen und Fremden aller Stände, enthaltend die Beschreibung oder Nachweisung alles Wissenswerthen der Oertlichkeit (Berlin: Eisersdorff mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Beziehungen der Hauptstadt zu den Provinzen), 374–376.
Walusiak, E., and Krztoń, W. (2021). Cemetery fugitives: The role of the land use of the surroundings of burial places in alien plant species invasions. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 65, 127358. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127358
Way, J. G., and Eatough, D. L. (2006). Use of "micro"-corridors by eastern coyotes, Canis latrans, in a heavily urbanized area: Implications for Ecosystem Management. Can. Field. Nat. 120 (4), 474. doi:10.22621/cfn.v120i4.358
Westphal, U. (2006). Wilde Hamburger. Natur in der Großstadt. Hamburg: Murmann, 215p.
Wimmer, C. A. (2001). Bäume und Sträucher in historischen Gärten: Gehölzverwendung in Geschichte und Denkmalpflege. Dresden: Verlag der Kunst.
Woodthorpe, K. (2011). Sustaining the contemporary cemetery: Implementing policy alongside conflicting perspectives and purpose. Mortality 16 (3), 259–276. doi:10.1080/13576275.2011.586125
Worpole, K. (2003). Last landscapes. London: Reaktion Books.
Young, C. P., Blackmore, B. K., Reynolds, P., and Leavens, A. (2002). Pollution potential of cemeteries. R&D Technical Report P223. Bristol: Environment Agency.
Zelinsky, W. (1994). Gathering places for America’s dead: How many, where, and why? The Professional Geographer 46 (1), 29–38. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00029.x
Żychowski, J. (2012). Impact of cemeteries on groundwater chemistry: A review. Catena 93 (3), 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2012.01.009
Keywords: burial ground, heritage conservation, habitat diversity, transformation, cemetery ecology, participation, urban planning, connectivity
Citation: Säumel I, Butenschön S and Kreibig N (2023) Gardens of life: Multifunctional and ecosystem services of urban cemeteries in Central Europe and beyond—Historical, structural, planning, nature and heritage conservation aspects. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:1077565. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565
Received: 23 October 2022; Accepted: 24 November 2022;
Published: 04 January 2023.
Edited by:GIULIA CAPOTORTI, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Reviewed by:Alessandro Sebastiani, Council for Agricultural and Economics Research (CREA), Italy
Giulia Caneva, Roma Tre University, Italy
Copyright © 2023 Säumel, Butenschön and Kreibig. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ina Säumel, email@example.com