• @Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    67 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
      37 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
        27 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?