Reusing Old Graves : Executive Summary

This short report presents a summary of the vast range of data presented in Davies and Shaw's Reusing Old Graves, which explored the public response to the idea of reusing old graves. Specifically, the report aimed to discover attitudes towards the notion of graves being reused by recovering remains and reinterring them lower in the same grave (also called the `lift and lower' method). This summary report was prepared by the Cemetery Research Group, and is intended to direct councillors and local authority officers towards the data on which further debate relating to reuse could be based.

Sample

Interviews took place in four local authority areas: Sunderland, Barking and Dagenham, Glasgow and Nottingham. A total of 1,603 interviews were completed with people in their own homes. The sample in each area presented a representative selection of the population, chosen using data based on the 1991 Census. Only people over the age of 18 were interviewed.

Attitudes towards reuse of graves

People were not required to give 'yes/no' responses to the idea of reuse. Rather, the issue was approached indirectly. People were asked what would be a respectable time lapse before an old grave might be used for new burials by a different family. The question was an open one, and gave the opportunity for respondents to specify a number of years, to comment that reuse should not take place at all, or to say that they were unsure.

Fifty-five per cent of respondents specified a number of years before reuse could take place, and thereby indicated some support for the idea of reuse, conditional on this time lapse having taken place. For many people, the passage of time meant that there would be no-one left to tend the grave, and so reuse would be acceptable.

A further 30 per cent of respondents gave no number of years and said that graves should never be reused. In the majority of these cases, the response rested on the belief that it was wrong for the grave to be disturbed.

Fifteen per cent of respondents were undecided about reuse. This proportion of respondents needed further exploration, on the implicit assumption that they were either hidden opposers or else potential supporters given the right stimulus. Analysis of questions which asked more specifically about acceptability of remains being buried in a casket deeper in a grave indicated that a proportion of the `undecided' group did in fact favour reuse. Since an additional 7 per cent of the survey sample found it acceptable to reuse graves following the `lift and lower' method, it can be assumed that 62 per cent of the interviewees favoured reuse.

Variation in Response

Although in general terms, the sample was favourable, there was a high degree of variety in response. A great deal of data is presented in the report on the variations. For the purposes of this summary, however, it is perhaps sufficient to note that there were variations by region, age, gender, occupation, kinship density and religion:

• Support for reuse was generally higher in London, with around two thirds of the respondents in favour, than in Glasgow, where support was around a half. In Nottingham and Sunderland support was around 55 per cent in each case.
• None of the specified age groups showed a majority against reuse, although support was more marked amongst the 40-65 age group, and less evident amongst younger people (50 per cent in the 18-24 group).
  More men than women favoured reuse (58 per cent vs 52 per cent).
• The more professional the occupation of the respondent the greater the support for reuse.
• People living at home with their parents, and people whose parents lived locally showed lower degrees of support for reuse, particularly in the Glasgow sample.
• Church of England respondents were more likely to favour reuse, as were Methodists (59 per cent and 53 per cent respectively). Roman Catholics and Church of Scotland interviewees were less marked in their support (47 per cent and 45 per cent respectively). Of the very small number of non-Christian interviewees, Muslims, Sikhs and Buddists were largely against reuse or were undecided. Atheist and Agnostic support for reuse was 57 per cent and 56 per cent respectively.

Further Policy Relevance

Further issues were explored in the interviews, which added to an understanding of various features of the debate relating to reuse, and these are miscellaneously presented here:

• Respondents were asked about their preferences for the type of resting place they wanted, and many specified a spot close to home and family - whether it was a cemetery or crematorium garden. This is an important finding for local authorities considering whether to buy cemetery or crematorium land in a location outside their local authority boundaries and so at a distance from where their customers live.
• For those respondents favouring reuse, a high proportion (92 per cent) specified that reuse would be acceptable after a time lapse of up to 100 years.
• People were asked about the acceptability of three possible methods of reuse: the recovering remains and re-interring them deeper in the same grave; recovering and cremating remains; and recovering and burying remains elsewhere. Strongest support was expressed for the `lift and deepen' method. Supporters for reuse found removing and cremating remains far less acceptable. The marked difference in acceptability of different types of reuse indicates the importance of informing the general public on any the technicalities of provision for the reuse of graves.
• Seventy six per cent of respondents who favoured resuse found it very acceptable or acceptable for headstones to be removed from an old grave once a photographic record had been secured.

Conclusion

From the considerable material gathered in the report by Davies and Shaw, clear conclusions can be drawn about the public acceptability of reuse. The survey indicated that the majority of those interviewed did not oppose reuse and indeed, amongst some groups, support for reuse was strong. The degree of regional variation indicates, however, that reuse should be introduced as an option more suitable for some sites than others. The survey indicates that reuse might be more appropriate for areas with perhaps a more mobile popoulation, or a higher proportion of residents in the AB social classifications.

Findings from the survey also indicated some principles on which reuse should be established: that reuse should not take place before a lapse of a hundred years before the last interment; that remains should be retained in the same grave, in a casket interred at a greater depth; and that a photographic record should be secured of any memorial before it is removed and a new memorial erected.

Finally, it should be stressed that the interviews which took place in a context where reuse has not been subject to open discussion, and where no attempt has been made to inform the public of advantages accruing to this sort of approach. The proportion of `undecided' people unable to specify a respectable number of years before a grave should be reused, and who then responded positively to the `lift and lower' approach indicates the need for people to have more information. It is possible that once more information is available, support for reuse might increase the already substantial majority in favour of such a policy.

Davies, D. and Shaw, A. (1995) Reusing Old Graves: A Report on Popular British Attitudes, Crayford : Shaw and Sons.