Environmental Attitudes

Do environmental attitudes in death care affect end-of-life choices?

A guest on Wisconsin Public Radio recently caught my attention talking about attitudes and the environment.  Thomas Heberlein, a professor of community and environmental sociology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has spent the last 40 years studying the affects of attitudes on people's actions when it comes to environmental issues.  Inspired by the talk, I checked out Heberlein's book "Navigating Environmental Attitudes" with consideration for people's choices in death care regarding environmental issues.  The premise of navigating attitudes compares marketing and messaging regarding environmental attitudes to rafting a river.  We don't set out on a river rafting trip with tons of dynamite so that we can move boulders and alter the riverscape.  Like boulders among the rapids, attitudes are difficult to move and it is far easier (and less expensive) to understand and navigate attitudes than it is to alter them. 

amazon.com

Heberlein goes into great academic detail on the characteristics of attitude and how to measure attitudes of a population.  Interestingly, while attitudes are a real and observable influence in behavior, an attitude cannot be held, it has no mass, color, temperature, or other characteristics we generally associate with scientific measurement.  Generally speaking, however, an attitude can be observed when an individual likes/dislikes an object or agrees/disagrees with an idea.  When observing attitudes, there is always an object.  That object can be an idea (environmental conservation), movement (racial equality), or a physical thing (bees).

Like environmental attitudes, death care attitudes can be observed as having both cognitive as well as emotional characteristics.  The cognitive aspect of public attitude can be influenced with information (facts or purported facts) logic, and reason.   The emotional aspect of public attitude is influenced by individual experience and is harder to change.  Public attitudes can also be modeled both horizontally and vertically.  The horizontal dimension represents the number of cognitive supporting elements of an attitude.  The wider the horizontal axis (i.e. more supporting elements) the more stable the attitude is.  The vertical dimension represents the emotional experience and core values from which the cognitive assessment is derived.  Supporting elements of attitude deeply rooted in an individual's core values and personal experience are difficult to change.  Let us use this model to observe environmental attitudes and cremation.

[I preface this model with the disclaimer that these are not my personal opinions (or my personal attitude) but observations from reading countless articles on the topic and in speaking with 100s of death care professionals and families.]  To illustrate on the horizontal axis, let's review four elements of public attitude (there are others) for choosing cremation as an alternative to a cemetery burial.  Cremation is less expensive.  Cremation does not occupy valuable land space.  Cremation does not require embalming, casket, or a cemetery monument.  Cremation was the choice of someone close to me [spouse, parent, grand-parent, etc.].  Each of these four elements is supported by an individual's values and experience.

In this example, we observe that this individual values money and has information or experience leading to the conclusion that cremation is less costly than a cemetery burial.  This person values environmental conservation and land use.  From the statement about embalming we might observe that this person has an emotional experience regarding embalming and also wishes to avoid unnecessary spending on a casket and monument.  Lastly, the emotional connection to other members of family is a key factor in attitude.  People find comfort following their family when it comes to making end-of-life choices.

We can assess that this individual's attitude, based on four cognitive elements each deeply rooted in both information (cognitive) and experience (emotion), is fairly stable.  Moving just one of these elements (i.e. if cremation was suddenly more expensive) is not likely to change this individual's attitude.  On the other hand, people's attitudes generally shift and change over time.  This can be observed with maturity as values change over the course of a lifetime.  In this example, an individual may discover a conservation cemetery that actually preserves land for environmental conservation and learn that a direct burial can be achieved without use of embalming, casket, or monument.  This might be enough new information to change one individual's attitude toward cremation.  Yet another individual, even with 3 of the 4 horizontal elements of attitude removed, may have a deeply rooted value (i.e. being cremated and interred next to a spouse) that upholds the individual's attitude toward cremation as an end-of-life choice. 

It might seem as though navigating attitudes in death care is a hopeless exercise that will have us running in circles.  We must recognize that two individuals with seemingly similar life experiences based on the same information and core values can have opposing attitudes on the same subject.  Take for example attitudes on a contemporary environmental topic such as proposed legislation banning chemicals found to kill bees.  Take notice that two individuals sitting in a barber shop in your local community can read the same newspaper article, share similar core values, and even vote the same politically, but have opposing attitudes on bees.  We see the same in death care on a number of detailed subjects including embalming, metal vs. wood caskets, how comfortable a casket interior looks & feels, land use and cemeteries, etc.

I try to bring each of these columns to a close with a call to action.  I offer this shallow glimpse into the well-established science of sociology and environmental attitudes to help us better understand our families' choices in end-of-life care.  First, we must recognize that attitudes change slowly.  During pre-planning we have time to ask questions to better understand the core values of an individual planning a funeral and offer new information and alternatives that may lead an individual to better decisions--decisions more in line with their core values.  But even after offering what might be entirely new information, it takes time for the cognitive process to influence a change in attitude.  This might happen over a few days, months, or even years but it certainly won't happen during that one hour session. 

Second, by listening to our families and observing their core values, we not only put ourselves in a better position to provide a valued service, we build trust with our families.  Human psychology (and sales training) tell us that good listening and comprehension skills achieve a mutual understanding of an individual's values and lead to trust in lasting personal relationships.  People very much like to be understood.  As for offering information, transparency is key.  Separate your personal attitudes from factual information.  It is helpful to offer a recommendation based on your own attitude, but be forthcoming that your recommendation is based on your own personal experience and core values.  For example, "I value the environment as did my Mother, so when we buried her we decided to..." is an honest statement that discloses both your values and your own experience.  Offering factual information comes more naturally, "The nearest conservation cemetery is 200 miles away.  The plot and mileage expense would amount to about $xxxx.  However, this rural cemetery just 6 miles outside of the city allows direct burial in a simple wooden casket without a burial vault and would save the time, expense, and environmental impact of the mileage."  Even at the difficult time of need, offering both the richness of your experience and depth of your knowledge can help a family feel better about their choices--and build ever-lasting trust in personal relationships.  This is was separates the practitioners from the professionals.

Greening America's Cemeteries

This column originally appeared in the February, 2013 issue of Funeral Home and Cemetery News by Nomis Publications, Inc.

Cemeteries respond to interest in natural burial.

Green Burial entered the American vernacular in 1998 with the opening of Ramsey Creek Preserve near Greenville, South Carolina.  In the 15 years since there has been much discussion regarding death care in America and green alternatives to conventional burial.  News articles tend to follow a formula with a cliche headline on death and burial.  Articles often include a quote from Joe Sehee, founder of the Green Burial Council (created in 2005) or James Olson, spokesman on green burial for the NFDA.  Most cite statistics on the volumes of hardwoods, steel, and concrete buried each year in America's cemeteries.  Many will mention Jessica Mitford's American Way of Death or a quote from the more contemporary and journalistic views in Grave Matters by Mark Harris.  Almost every story cites survey statistics to demonstrate growing public interest in green burial including the 2007 AARP poll indicating 21% of respondents were curious about or considering green burial and the 2008 Kates-Boylston survey finding 43% of respondents would consider a green burial.

A great many news stories on green burial originate from local TV and newspaper media announcing a green cemetery or a green burial at a local cemetery.  Many dozens of existing municipal, religious, and private cemeteries have opened new sections of property dedicated to varying "shades of green" burial services.  There is also the growing number of newly opened green cemeteries entirely committed to green burial such as Greenhaven Preserve near Columbia, South Carolina.

The Green Burial Council (GBC) characterizes three tiers of cemeteries in its green burial standard for cemeteries: Hybrid, Natural, and Conservation.  A Hybrid rating might include an existing traditional cemetery that would allow a burial without a vault or grave liner in any type of casket or burial shroud.  Riverview Cemetery established 1882 in Portland, Oregon is one such Hybrid cemetery allowing green interments in nearly every area of the cemetery.  While the GBC lists 20 such Hybrid cemeteries in North America and Canada on its web site, there are countless municipal cemeteries located in both rural and urban settings across America that have no strict requirements on the use of a burial vaults or caskets.  For most Americans, this "lighter shade of green" burial sans vault and with an eco-friendly casket is available nearby.

A Natural Burial Ground takes it up a notch in defining non-toxic practices to protect the environment.  The GBC uses several criteria including the cemetery's policies on burial vaults, caskets or shrouds, embalming, use of chemicals in lawn care, grave opening/closing techniques, and land status.  Land status must also guarantee adherence to green practices through deed restriction, conservation easement, or other irrevocable legally binding agreement in perpetuity.  The GBC lists a dozen cemeteries at this level.  At the highest standard, Conservation burial grounds are those that demonstrate a legally binding responsibility for perpetual stewardship of the land and are adjacent to land of ecological significance such as a park, wildlife corridor or critical habitat area.  There are four such cemeteries in the U.S. that have achieved the Conservation burial ground level as defined by the GBC including Honey Creek Woodlands (Conyers, GA), Foxfield Preserve (Wilmot, OH), Ramsey Creek Preserve (Westminster, SC), and White Eagle Memorial Preserve (Goldendale, WA).

The Green Burial Council has contributed much to an international conversation on green and natural burial by defining standards. But there are far more practitioners than there are certifications when it comes to greening America's cemeteries.  Inquiries for a "back to nature" burial are growing ever more common among America's cemeteries.   Graham Garner, warden/manager of the 17 acre West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friends South Western Burial Ground established in 1861, tells us that while they have not actively promoted green burials, they have had five such burial requests already--a significant number because sometimes a year will go by with no burials.  This cemetery, home to roughly 4000 grave sites, is the final resting place for Quakers (and others) seeking a simple "environmentally aware" burial.  Two families used simple wooden caskets, and three used cloth burial shrouds.  Graham explains they do not have vault or casket requirements, but they do have some restrictions on headstones.

A very new burial ground by contrast is the Natural Path Sanctuary that opened June, 2011 in Verona, Wisconsin.  Kevin Corrado, coordinator for the sanctuary, explains that while they prefer shrouded burials they will accept caskets made from "unfinished non-precious woods" and free of non-biodegradable materials.  Conventional practices including burial vaults, embalming, and grave markers are not allowed. All graves in the wooded sanctuary are dug and closed by hand.

In 2012, the Catholic Sentinel reported that Mount Calvary in Portland, Oregon became the second Catholic cemetery in the nation to offer a dedicated area of the cemetery for green burial.  Tim Corbett, superintendent of Catholic cemeteries for the Archdiocese of Portland, explains that he first started hearing about green burial six years ago.  He views this movement as a way for people to leave a natural legacy adding that if everyone opted for a green burial, he'd have 500 acres of endowed forest.  The St. Francis green burial section of the cemetery has space for 120 graves and will re-forest the area as interments are made.

The Green Burial Council and the Centre for Natural Burial each list more than 30 green burial sites in the U.S.  If we include all private, municipal, and church operated cemeteries offering green burial options there may already be more than 200 cemeteries in America where people can opt for a green burial.  Trend or fad, I'm optimistic that awareness on green burial continues to spread throughout America, more options are becoming available, and that our industry is changing for the better when it comes to protecting our natural habitat. 

Cremation Vs Burial

This column originally appeared in the January, 2013 issue of Funeral Home and Cemetery News by Nomis Publications, Inc.

Is Cremation a Green Alternative to a Casketed Cemetery Burial?

In the last decade cremation has continued to grow in its appeal to families in America.  The percentage of deaths in the U.S. where families choose cremation has grown from less than 4% in 1960 to more than 40% annually.  With growing interest in sustainability, many marketers have touted cremation as a green alternative to a casket burial in a cemetery.  Let us examine cremation with carbon life cycle assessment and our definition of Green as it applies to death care to also include the political and economic factors in promoting a healthy environment for all living things.

Wooden cremation containers reduce fossil fuel use.

Consider a typical cremation that includes a wooden cremation container and human remains.  Interestingly, a 2011 Netherlands study revealed that cremation with wooden caskets result in less fossil-fuel used during incineration.  The wood serves as a renewable fuel source--thus the more wood used in the cremation container, the less fuel required during incineration.  The fossil-fuel powered cremation process takes 2-3 hours for the stages of warm-up and incineration where temperatures reach 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.  An Australian study determined the combined release of CO2 from burning the fossil fuel, cremation container, and human remains is 350 lbs (160 kg) CO2.  Other sources suggest the carbon impact of incineration is closer to 600 lbs (275 kg) CO2.  The Australian study at 350 lbs CO2 compares favorably to the impact of an imported steel casket at 2000 lbs (900 kg) CO2.  However, cremation is 7 times greater than the impact of a green casket made locally from sustainable materials at 50 lbs CO2.  

The toxicity of cremation is harder to quantify than the carbon impact.  Cremation generates emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), NMVOCs, and other heavy metals, in addition to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP).   For a human body that contains metal implants or dental fillings, the impact of incineration releases harmful dioxins and mercury--there is an ongoing debate on how to address mercury poisoning from cremation which the United States EPA believes is the 3rd largest contributor of air-born mercury contamination.  The United Nations has estimated that 0.2% of the global emission of dioxins and furans are from cremation.  While embalming is not required for direct cremation, circumstances that include a viewing or service prior to cremation often include embalming.  The toxic gases released by cremating an embalmed body are cause for further controversy over the health and environmental impacts of cremation.

One green argument in favor of cremation invokes the social, political, and economic factors of land use.  Studies in Australia and the Netherlands concluded that the carbon impact of cemetery maintenance alone could account for as much as 30 lbs CO2 per grave site every year.  Some believe that a casketed burial in a cemetery occupies precious land space that could serve other useful purposes.  The Netherlands study points out that land competition is a contributing factor for cremation if we consider the land use involved in producing the particleboard, wood, and cotton used in cremation containers.  Add to this the land use required to extract, refine, store, and distribute fossil fuels.  We should also consider that a large contributor to the growing popularity of cremation since the 1960s has to do with the acceptance of cremation by the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church maintains that cremated remains must be entombed in an appropriate container in a cemetery, mausoleum, or columbarium--all of which occupy land space.  From a full-story perspective on land use by itself, cremation and cemetery burial might be comparable in environmental, political, and economic factors when it comes to promoting a healthy environment for all living things. 

I offer another consideration on the subject land competition when comparing cemetery burials with cremation.  America's cemeteries serve our cities, villages, and towns as green space.  Some cemeteries serve their communities in the same way that a park does by offering a safe and quiet place for a walk or exercise.  Cemeteries provide wildlife habitat for birds, butterflies, and squirrels as well as storm water run-off control.  More recently, America's growing number of conservation cemeteries for natural burials both preserve and protect lands for public enjoyment and for natural wildlife habitat.  Families concerned about land competition may be interested in options for nearby conservation cemeteries where funds raised through the sale of burial plots serve to maintain and protect the land for conservation, wildlife, and recreational purposes.

An individual's choice is personal.

Every individual should have the liberty to make their own choices when it comes to end-of-life care.  An individual's choice is personal.  What should be important to those of us in the death care industry is that an individual's choice be an informed one.  We fail to serve our families if we are complacent in accepting an individual's decision without understanding the motivation or base values behind that decision.  That is not to say we should question an individual's values, but rather inform with facts so that our families can make informed decisions in accordance with their individual values.  After all, isn't it our duty to inform our families without questioning their values or judging their wishes?