Gardens of life: Multifunctional and ecosystem services of urban cemeteries in Central Europe and beyond—Historical, structural, planning, nature and heritage conservation aspects

Abstract

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.

Full text

Gardens of life: Multifunctional
and ecosystem services of urban
cemeteries in Central Europe and
beyond—Historical, structural,
planning, nature and heritage
conservation aspects
Ina Säumel
1
*, Sylvia Butenschön
2
and Nina Kreibig
3
1
Integrative Research Institute THESys Transformation of Human-Environment-Systems, Humboldt-
Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany,
2
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Chair of Urban
Conservation and Urban Cultural Heritage, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany,
3
Department 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.
KEYWORDS
burial ground, heritage conservation, habitat diversity, transformation, cemetery
ecology, participation, urban planning, connectivity
OPEN ACCESS
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
*CORRESPONDENCE
Ina Säumel,
ina.saeumel@hu-berlin.de
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted to Land
Use Dynamics,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Environmental Science
RECEIVED 23 October 2022
ACCEPTED 24 November 2022
PUBLISHED 04 January 2023
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
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.
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org01
TYPE Systematic Review
PUBLISHED 04 January 2023
DOI 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

Introduction
Due to their associations, and reflecting cultural changes in
urban societies, burial grounds have always been special places
within cities
1
. 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.
1 In 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).
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org02
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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).
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.
Results
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.
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.
Search for Keywords
Urban Cemetery Cemetery (ies), graveyard, churchyard, burial, urban, city (ies)
History, development, and characterisation history, cultural history, cultural meaning, design, historical plant use
Historical plant use, biodiversity and nature
conservation
Diversity, biodiversity, species diversity, vegetation, flora, fauna, vegetation, tree(s), plant use, woody species, nature
conservation
Regulating service Climate, climate change, heat island, temperature, cooling, water regulation, water purification, storm water, air
filtration, particulate deposition, carbon sequestration, noise reduction
Habitat service Biodiversity maintenance, primary production, nutrient cycling, gene pool protection, nursery service
Cultural service Culture, aesthetic, ethic, leisure, amenity, psychological, education, scientific, market value, spiritual, recreation,
tourism, religious, sense of place
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org03
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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).
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
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.
Year <1950 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 2000s 2010s Total
Search for [in German National Library]
Urban Cemetery/cemeteries in general 246 75 60 103 187 371 505 422 1969
Urban Cemetery/cemeteries and history, development, and characterisation —2 4 20 105 352 454 211 1,148
Cemetery/cemeteries and historical plant use 12 0 3
[in ISI web of knowledge, Scopus]
Cemetery/cemeteries in the subject areas of environmental sciences ecology, geography and
architecture
1 9 63 87 191 1,373 1724
Cemetery/cemeteries in the subject areas of environmental sciences ecology 2 4 33 105 255 399
Cemetery/cemeteries and biodiversity, nature conservation, protection 1 14 41 66
Cemetery/cemeteries and ecosystem services 32124
Cemetery/cemeteries and urban planning 1 1 1 3 11 55 127 199
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org04
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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
TABLE 3 Overview of types of cemeteries in Central Europe adapted from Graf (1986),Sörries (2003).
Types of cemeteries Area
(ha)
Location Design Plant use
Church yards of the middle age <1 in the historic town centre nearby
church
undesigned lawn with some
(fruit) trees; very few woody
species
Tilia species on the border; Sempervivum
tectorum on graveyards wall; symbolic,
medicinal plants
Alley-quarter cemeteries of the
18th century (e.g., Figure 1A)
2–5 outside the historic town centre,
within urban extension of 19th
century
with intersecting avenues,
framing woody stands
Tilia, Populus, Robinia
Park cemeteries since the mid of
19th century (e.g., Figure 1B)
10–30 at the outskirts of the city Tilia,Castanea, Platanus, Betula Robinia,
conifers great variety
Forest cemeteries since 20th
century (e.g., Figure 1C)
30–100 at the outskirts of the city near-natural, woodland
vegetation
often Pinus, remnants of the tree, shrub and
partly also herb layer of the original forest
vegetation
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).
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org05
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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.
Regulating services
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
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org06
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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
greenspaces(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.
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org07
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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).
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 species
2
were recorded (Westphal 2006;Schönfeld 2012). In New York
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).
2 The 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.
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org08
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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).
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org09
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

Cultural services
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).
Provisioning services
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.,
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org10
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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.
Discussion
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
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.
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org11
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

planting and maintenance would also be more compatible with
conservation goals.
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 spacesinthewakeoftherevival
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,
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org12
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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 profitis
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
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org13
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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).
Conclusion
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.
Author contributions
All authors did the research and conceptualized the
manuscript. IS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. NK and
SB reviewed the manuscript.
Funding
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].
Acknowledgments
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.
Publisher’s note
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.
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org14
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

References
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’sfloristic 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 toruńcemeteries 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 źródełemisji 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
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org15
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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). Dissert ation
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.
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org16
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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.,andMolnár,V.A.(2019).Biodiversity
potential of burial places –areviewontheflora 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’ssaleprice.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.,andPoe,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., Jr, 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
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org17
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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: http://journals.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).Urbanforaging:Aubiquitoushumanpractice
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, abunda nce 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
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org18
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565

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).GatheringplacesforAmerica’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
Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org19
Säumel et al. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077565