• Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    For the grieving thing, they really don’t need that much land to do it. I think the other commenter is generally correct, though.

    When it comes to the wildlife thing, it’s all just low-height grass monocultures and maybe a few trees if you’re lucky. That’s not really doing the animals any favours, they need taller grasses and bushes to hide in, and more tree density than a cemetary allows for. A dense urban forest with a footpath would be far better. An example of this is Montréal’s Parc Angrignon, if you want to check that out.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      True, a densely forested park is better than a cemetery. In my experience, most parks are not this type though and many cemeteries - especially those more than a century old - have more trees.

      I mean, take a look at e.g. Greenwich Park in London. That’s nearly a golf course!

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sounds like we just need to make better parks, then, no? Like, we’re already asking for change so why not just have that be part of it?