Life in the deadlands: unearthing reasons for visiting and visitor perceptions of wildlife in London’s Magnificent Seven cemeteries

Abstract

Cemeteries, traditionally reserved for mourning, are also valuable urban green spaces contributing to ecosystem services, wildlife habitats, and human well-being. This study focuses on London’s Magnificent Seven cemeteries, which vary in habitat and usage, from semi-wild nature reserves to active burial sites. In autumn 2023, we conducted non-participatory observations of human activities and wildlife presence, and surveyed visitors (n = 176) regarding their perceptions of birds (crows, magpies, parakeets, robins, owls, blackbirds), mammals (fox, grey squirrel, bats, rats, cats, hedgehogs, rabbits, deer) and activities (e.g. biking, dog walking, picnicking). Our observations showed that visitors primarily engaged in solitary or accompanied walks. Observed animals included crows (Corvus spp.) and pigeons (Columba spp.), as well as grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Regarding visitor perceptions, wildlife was generally perceived positively, with invasive ring-necked parakeets (Psittacula krameri) as well as non-native grey squirrels occasionally evoking negative perceptions. Activities like grave visiting and solitary walks are widely accepted, while picnicking, biking and sports are less favored, with younger participants and locals generally being more accepting to more lively activities. Urban cemeteries play multifunctional roles beyond mourning, offering green spaces for recreation and wildlife habitats. This study highlights the importance of recognizing cemeteries as critical urban refuges for both people and wildlife, demonstrating that sacred grounds and urban wilderness can coexist to create restorative green spaces in busy cities. The future survival of inner-city cemeteries depends on their rejuvenation and integration into local communities, enabling them to act as nature-based solutions to withstand development pressures.

Introduction

Cemeteries are urban greenspaces with substantial potential to contribute to ecosystem services (Sallay et al. 2023, Stumpe et al. 2024), wildlife habitats (Morelli et al. 2018) and human well-being (Swensen et al. 2016). While they are mainly acknowledged as sites of burial for mourning and remembrance purposes (Francis et al. 2000, Woodthorpe 2011, Sidaway 2016), characterized by an orderly internal layout and shaped by what the community deems appropriate funeral rituals (Rugg 2000), they are also classified as greenspaces in urban areas (Quinton et al. 2020, Myślińska et al. 2021). Despite this, they are often omitted from the greenspace narrative (Plumwood 2007, Quniton and Duinker 2019) as they are frequently attributed with a limited number of environmental qualities (Nordh and Evensen 2018, Długozima and Kosiacka-Beck 2020) and perceived as monofunctional spaces (Säumel et al. 2023). Nevertheless, in the context of urban population growth, the increasing importance of cemeteries as green spaces is becoming more pronounced within scientific discourse (Uslu et al. 2009, Rae 2021).

Cemeteries as spaces for activities beyond mourning and remembrance

Cemeteries possess the potential to serve purposes beyond mourning, functioning as communal spaces for the local public (Skår et al. 2018, Swensen and Skår 2019, Grabalov and Nordh 2022), and particularly as “restorative environments” (Swensen et al. 2016) to escape from the monotony of urban structures (Rice 2022). But perceptions of cemeteries primarily as spaces for mourning often influence the activities conducted within them (Nordh and Evensen 2015, Nordh et al. 2022). As a consequence, they are maintained by managers mostly for the purpose of mourning and burial (Skår et al. 2018). However, citizens may also use cemeteries for other activities. These include touristic visits (Francis 2003, Pécsek 2015, Mionel 2020), solitary walking (Evensen et al. 2017), walking with a baby in a stroller or with a dog (Lai et al. 2019) and even jogging (Grabalov 2018). However, these activities can be seen as questionable by some members of the public (Grabalov 2018, Nordh et al. 2023). To be actively used, urban cemeteries with green space need to lose their stigma as places for the dead and allow more activities for the living whilst respecting the people buried there.

Cemeteries as wildlife habitat

Cemeteries harbor significant potential to support biodiversity (Kowarik et al. 2016, Sallay et al. 2023, Säumel et al. 2023, Itescu and Jeschke 2024). Examples include cemeteries serving as urban forests (Quniton et al. 2020) and providing habitat for birds (Morelli et al. 2018, Villaseñor and Escobar 2019), mammals (Wembridge and Langton 2016), and other species (Petersson et al. 2018, Löki et al. 2019). Cemeteries are areas where wildlife can roam freely (Čanády and Mošanský 2017, Gallo et al. 2017), and humans and wildlife meet (Moesch et al. 2024a). Further, they have also been highlighted as a means to connect habitats (Scalenghe and Pantani 2019). While wild animals in cemeteries could potentially create damage, e.g. through browsing of planted flowers (Plumwood 2007, McClymont 2016) or digging burrows (Bruleigh and Vandruff 1998), recent surveys show that people are accepting towards more biodiversity (Stadt Köln 2020) and structures that offer habitats, e.g. dead wood habitats (Straka et al. 2022).

Most cemeteries are highly maintained (Clayden et al. 2018, Quinton and Duinker 2019). For instance, they often have short lawns (Rugg 2006) and managers see it as acceptable to reduce wildlife by culling (Moesch et al. 2024b). Hence, cemeteries have untapped potential to serve as providers for ecosystem services (McClymont and Sinnett 2021) including wildlife habitats, provided they permit a more natural abandonment of maintenance practices (Kowarik et al. 2016, Clayden et al. 2018). As cemeteries are central for preserving both natural and cultural diversity (Francaviglia 1971, Barrett and Barrett 2001), they need to be acknowledged as significant green infrastructure within the urban landscape (Lai et al. 2020, Długoński et al. 2022, Maddrell et al. 2023), with potential for integration into nature-based-solution approaches (Coombes and Viles 2021).

Cemeteries in transition

As the cultural preference shifts from burials to cremations (Cremation Society 2023), the latter's spatial efficiency becomes evident, necessitating less land for interment (Długozima 2020). Concerns have been expressed regarding the existence of cemeteries in densely urbanized regions, where affordable living spaces are increasingly scarce. The argument asserts that prioritizing designs for the living should take precedence over those for the deceased (Klaufus 2016a, Allam 2019). Plans exist to transfer cemeteries into housing developments, e.g. in Berlin (Holleran 2023) and instances can be found where cemeteries have been repurposed into playgrounds or parks, e.g. in London (Brown 2013), Berlin (Holleran 2023), Brisbane (Haslam et al. 2003) and Warsaw (Myślińska et al. 2021); and even where cemeteries have been utilized for shortcuts with highways, e.g. in Singapore (Tan and Yeo 2023). However, the transformation of cemeteries into parks can encounter local resistance (e.g. Bern, Switzerland: Klingemann 2022), as this could interfere with the “final resting place” narrative (Kay 1998). Difficulty in reshaping cemeteries exists though the granting of perpetual grave rights, which have profound effects of their physical structure and how they are managed (House et al. 2023). A compromise approach would be to transform existing cemeteries into spaces that serve biodiversity and human activities while retaining existing graves (Długozima and Kosiacka-Beck 2020), aligning with communities' desires to preserve these spaces yet incorporating commemorative elements that acknowledge the historical significance of the site (Puzdrakiewicz 2020). Examples of such places are rare but do exist, for instance in the Jewish Cemetery Weißensee in Berlin (Kowarik et al. 2016), or in London’s Abney Park Cemetery (Rice 2022) and Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park (Feldbrugge et al. 2016). The latter two are part of London's “Magnificent Seven Cemeteries,” around 180 years old, evolving into park-like areas with cultural elements while keeping graves intact (Turpin and Knight 2011). However, achieving the transformation of cemeteries hinges on understanding the demographics of visitors and their motivations (Swensen et al. 2016, Evensen et al. 2017), alongside perceptions of activities (Długozima and Kosiacka-Beck 2020, Nordh et al. 2022) and wild elements within these spaces (Petersson et al. 2018, Straka et al. 2022). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the backgrounds and perceptions of visitors in cemeteries that are either in the process or at the end stage of such transformations.

Research question

Cemeteries, which persist as central features in urban landscapes despite their age, such as the “Magnificent Seven” in London, may offer diverse opportunities for activities and habitat for wildlife. While some of the Magnificent Seven remain active burial grounds under stringent management, others have transformed into parks and nature reserves while still retaining elements of their cemetery heritage. Hence, we decided to investigate the set of these seven cemeteries to investigate how visitors perceive and utilize these cemeteries as urban green spaces, considering their potential as habitat for wildlife and usage for diverse activities. We used non-participatory observation to document visitor numbers and their activities, as well as the presence of wild mammals and bird species. Additionally, we conducted in-person visitor questionnaires aimed at exploring: (i) the reasons for visitors' visits, (ii) their perception of the cemetery, (iii) their encounters with wild mammals and birds, and (iv) their acceptance of activities within the cemetery.

We hypothesize that the predominant visitors will be local residents rather than those mourning relatives (H1), encounters with wildlife will be infrequent and generally disliked by visitors as wild animals might interfere with the setting of cemeteries as spaces for mourning (H2), and local residents will exhibit higher levels of agreement towards permissible activities within cemeteries compared to tourists and those mourning relatives (H3).

With the findings from this study, we aim to advocate for the preservation of urban cemeteries and promote their transformation into multifunctional urban greenspaces. By understanding visitors' acceptance of activities and wildlife presence, we can provide guidance to cemetery managers to align cemetery management with the preferences of the local public. Additionally, we aspire to reshape current perceptions of cemeteries, emphasizing that they are more than mere burial grounds but rather spaces for the local community to connect with nature.

Methods

Study site

We sampled seven cemeteries in London known as the “Magnificent Seven”: (1) Highgate Cemetery, (2) Kensal Green Cemetery, (3) Brompton Cemetery, (4) West Norwood Cemetery, (5) Nunhead Cemetery, (6) Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park and (7) Abney Park Cemetery; all established on the early-mid 19th century border of London (Fig. 1, Table 1). The Magnificent Seven were opened during the 19th century as the first horticulturally-landscaped cemeteries, aimed at relieving the congestion in existing parish burial grounds due to the population surge in Victorian-era London (Mellor and Parsons 1981, Turpin and Knight 2011). While all of these cemeteries have areas that are extensively overgrown with bushes and trees (Fig. 1), there are differences in habitat according to the current use of the space. While Nunhead, Tower Hamlets and Abney Park are listed as local nature reserves within the Greater London Area (http://www.lnr.naturalengland.org.uk), funeral services are still held at Brompton, West Norwood and Kensal Green (Table 1). Hence, differences in pathways exist among the cemeteries, with some featuring muddy footpaths (Abney Park, Tower Hamlets, Nunhead, and Highgate East) and others having paved roads (West Norwood, Brompton, Highgate West, and Kensal Green), e.g. to allow vehicle access. In addition, Highgate, Kensal Green, and West Norwood have strict dog bans, while Brompton designates areas for dog walkers, and Nunhead requires dogs to be on leads (Supplementary Table A1, Fig. A1). While Abney Park is famous for being the filming location of Amy Winehouse’s 2009 music video to “Back to Black” (Winehouse 2009, Sledmere 2018), others are renowned for being the burial sites of famous individuals: West Norwood is the burial place of Henry Tate (1819–1899) known for establishing the Tate Gallery in London (Turpin and Knight 2011). Highgate Cemetery is the most famous of the Seven, and includes the grave sites of German philosopher Karl Marx (1818–1883), pop-musician George Michael (1963–6), author of “Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” Douglas Adams (1952–2001) and Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko (1962–2006) (Highgate Map). Additionally, Highgate is the sole cemetery among the seven that requires an entrance fee (£10).

Non-participatory observation

Cemeteries were visited between 19th October and eighth December 2023, from 11:00 to 16:00 (usually closing time). Test observations to validate the list of proposed activities and apparent species present were conducted in two cemeteries before (Abney Park, Tower Hamlets) and one after (Abney Park) the survey days. The weather (partly cloudy, sunny or cloudy) was documented as well as the temperature. Rainy, stormy and snowy days were avoided due to expected low visitor numbers of these sites. During non-participatory observation at the study sites, activities and species (mammals and birds) presence were meticulously recorded. This involved systematically recording which animals were encountered by the observer within each designated time window and documenting the diverse array of human activities, including walking, sitting, biking, jogging, grave visiting, and dog walking, etc., observed within the cemeteries. This observation process was conducted twice daily, specifically in the morning and afternoon, aligning precisely 30 min before each questionnaire session (detailed below). As a result, we conducted four sets of 30-min observations in total within each cemetery, and subsequently averaged the observations. Non-participatory observation offers valuable insights into the visual landscape and usage patterns of a studied area, facilitating familiarity for subsequent exploration (Angrosino 2004). Moreover, non-participatory observation methods are commonly utilized by researchers to assess the behavior of human or local visitors in urban green spaces without actively engaging in the observed situations (Tzoulas and James 2010, Dushkova et al. 2022). Additionally, systematic observations are considered a valuable complement to other qualitative research methods in urban green spaces, such as surveys (McCormack et al. 2010).

Questionnaire

We built a web-based survey to use with a Samsung Galaxy Tablet A8 10.5 SM-X200 to facilitate questioning of visitors in cemeteries. We decided to use a web-survey on a tablet as evidence suggested a better performance and also data management compared to paper-based questionnaires (Hassler et al. 2018, Fanning and McAuley 2014, Kusumoto et al. 2017). The tool SoSci Survey (https://www.soscisurvey.de/) was used to create the survey, which was delivered question by question and was simultaneously shown to survey participants. Test surveys were circulated to colleagues and friends, and tested in Abney Park and Tower Hamlets before the first formal data collection. Every individual encountered was approached for participation to avoid biases. However, we refrained from approaching individuals attending funerals or visibly engaged in mourning or grieving processes, out of respect for their emotional state and privacy. Moreover, due to the rapid movement of cyclists, skaters, and joggers within the cemetery premises, we were unable to capture their responses. The questionnaire (Supplementary data B) included 20 questions and covered: Consent (Q1), location of completion (Q2), cemetery visited (Q3), personal description of the site in three words (Q4), where participants traveled from (Q5), and distance traveled (Q6), frequency of visit (Q7) and purpose of visit (Q8). Participants also responded on encounters and acceptance of mammal presence (Q9, Q10) and birds (Q11, Q12), and agreed/disagreed on the appropriateness of 16 presented recreational activities (Q13), and on four statements on cemeteries in general (Q14). Lastly, socio-economic details including gender (Q15), birth year (Q16), residence (Q17, Q18), ethnicity (Q19), and religion (Q20) were collected.

Further, we asked questions around the acceptance of mammals and birds in these cemeteries based on common wildlife occurrences in London (London Wildlife Trust 2022, Natural History Museum London 2023) and images of animals captured in a camera trap project in London’s parks and cemeteries (Mammal Web: Wild London, see Supplementary Fig. A2). The species investigated included eight mammals: Deer (Cervus spp.), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), bats (Chiroptera spp.), rats (Rattus norvegicus), grey squirrels (Sciurius carolinensis), European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus), European rabbits (Qryctolagus cuniculus) and domesticated house cats (Felis silvestris catus). These were followed by seven birds: Owls (Strigiformes spp.), ring necked or rose-ringed parakeets (Psittacula krameri), crows (Corvus spp.), European robins (Erithacus rubecula), European magpie (Pica pica), pigeons (Columbia spp.) and European blackbirds (Turdus merula). While the majority of the animals included were native to the United Kingdom or established centuries ago, we examined two notable exceptions identified as invasive species, associated with adverse effects on native fauna: grey squirrels (Tompkins et al. 2003, Mayle and Broome 2013, Broughton 2020) and ring-necked parakeets (Newson et al. 2011, Peck 2013, Heald et al. 2020).

The recreational activities considered in relation to visitor perception encompassed a total of 16 actions, including visiting graves to mourn, visiting famous graves, visiting war graves, going for a walk, dog-walking, shortcutting, cycling, socializing, photography, wildlife viewing, educational activities, picnics, jogging, foraging, skateboarding/skating and playing sports. Visiting graves to mourn was included as a control item. Data on animal acceptance (Q10, Q12) and agreement/disagreement of the appropriateness of presented activities (Q13), and on the four statements (Q14) were collected with a five-point Likert Scale from strongly agree, agree, neutral to disagree and strongly disagree (Likert 1932, Joshi et al. 2015).

Reasons to visit cemeteries (Q8) included such activities as visiting graves of friends or family members, visiting graves of famous people, dog walking, on a walk alone or on a walk with other people, as well as an open field for participants to add their own reasons. In subsequent analysis, participants were classified based on their primary reasons for visiting the cemetery, with the following hierarchy applied to categorize their main purposes: (i) Mourning as visiting friends and family members’ graves; (ii) Touristic visitation, such as visiting famous graves; (iii) Working or volunteering at the cemetery; (iv) Using it as a shortcut; (v) Dog walking; (vi) Walking with children or a stroller; (vii) Walking with other individuals (adults, children above 12 years); (viii) Taking a break from work, including having lunch; (ix) Visiting for experiencing nature, feeding wildlife or foraging; and (x) Walking for exercise or personal reflection.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using R v4.2.2 (“Innocent and Trusting”) (R Core Team 2022). We ran two models of the amount of (i) mammals and (ii) birds encountered by cemetery visitors. Here, we employed general linear models (GLMs) (Myers and Montgomery 1997, Kiebel and Holmes 2007), with five predictor variables (Table 2) to ascertain instances where a higher number of mammals or birds were observed. Further, we ran models on the acceptance score for mammal presence, bird presence and the activities, testing the influence of the same five predictor variables (Table 2). We transformed the Likert Scale data to numerical scores for visual purposes from strongly agree = 100, agree = 75, neutral = 50, disagree = 25 to strongly disagree = 0 (Wu 2007, Chakrabartty 2014), but refrained from using those for statistical modelling: The usage of averages for Likert Scale data is an ongoing debate in the literature (León-Mantero et al. 2020), and has even been suggested as something to avoid (Barry 2017) as values are of categorical nature. Here, we used the suggestion of cumulative link models (clm) within the “ordinal” package (Christensen 2015). We assessed multicollinearity among predictor variables (Table 2) using the variance inflation factor (VIF, Thompson et al. 2017) via the R-package “car” (Fox and Weisberg 2019). Following O’Brien (2007), variables with a VIF < 3 were considered suitable for inclusion in the same models. All our variables exhibited a VIF < 2, indicating no multicollinearity. Statistical significance tests were conducted with a threshold p-value of 0.05, with results approaching significance (p-values between 0.05 and 0.1) also noted (Kim and Choi 2021). Model fit was evaluated based on conditional Hessian values, with models exceeding 10e6 considered to be ill-defined (Christensen 2015). For our analysis, we conducted a total of 31 models: 8 for mammal acceptance (one for each mammal), 7 for bird acceptance (one for each bird), and 16 for the acceptance of the 16 activities. We used mammal silhouettes from the R-package “phylopic” (Geartly et al. 2023) for visualizations.

Results

Survey participants

During the visited dates, the temperature fluctuated between 4°C and 18°C, with an average of 11.4°C. Most field days experienced partly cloudy weather conditions (7 days), followed by sunny days (6 days), and only one day with cloudy skies. A total of 176 survey responses were successfully collected across the seven cemeteries. The majority of participants were recruited from Brompton (n = 30), closely followed by Nunhead (n = 28), Highgate (n = 27), and Abney Park (n = 26), West Norwood (n = 24), while the lowest numbers of participants were recruited in Tower Hamlets (n = 22) and Kensal Green (n = 19). Most survey participants were female (n = 110) compared to male (n = 66). The predominant demographic consisted of individuals over 60 (n = 55) followed by 37 participants aged between 18 and 30 years, 39 between 31 and 40 years, 16 between 41 and 50 years, and 29 between 51 and 60 years. The largest group comprised frequently visiting locals (n = 96), followed by rare local visitors (n = 61), and lastly tourists (n = 19). Of the survey participants, only a fraction visited cemeteries for mourning purposes (n = 16, 9%). Most participants were of a white ethnic background (n = 153), lived currently in the UK (n = 158) and did not consider themselves religious (n = 109).

Space descriptions

After “peaceful” (n = 92), the next commonly used descriptors were “beautiful” (n = 30) and “green” (n = 23). Other noteworthy descriptions included terms referencing the historic nature of the sites (“nineteenth century,” “old,” “history”), as well as expressions evoking a sense of wonder (“magnificent,” “majestic,” “magical,” “mysterious,” “eerie,” “serene,” “haunting,” “scary”), and descriptions relating to nature (“semi-wild,” “overgrown,” “unkempt,” “natural”). Additionally, participants used words reflecting a restorative element (“escape,” “inspiring,” “relaxing,” “calming,” “oasis,” “sanctuary”). Terms such as “grandfather,” “brother,” “mother” and “father” were noted, resonating with the personal connections cherished by those visiting these final resting places. The most negative terms observed were “neglected,” “muddy,” and “crowded” (Supplementary Fig. A3).

Mammals and birds observed and encountered by visitors

During the non-participatory observation, the observer recorded all birds (Fig. 2A) and mammals (Fig. 2B) noted within the specified time frames. Of the investigated birds (Fig. 2A), crows, magpies, pigeons and parakeets were observed by the surveyor in all cemeteries, while robins (n = 6, exception West Norwood) and blackbirds (n = 5, exception Nunhead, West Norwood) were observed in most. Owls were not encountered. Regarding mammals (Fig. 2B), grey squirrels were the only mammals encountered in all seven sites followed by foxes encountered in four cemeteries (Highgate, Kensal Green, West Norwood and Nunhead), cats in three (Highgate, West Norwood, Tower Hamlets), rats in one (Abney Park) and bats, hedgehogs, rabbits and deer in none (Supplementary Table A2). While the foxes in Nunhead and West Norwood were only spotted running in the distance, foxes in Kensal Green and Highgate were not shy and engaged with humans (Fig. 2B, Supplementary Fig. A4). Apart from dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) being walked, no other mammals were observed. However, at Kensal Green, seagulls (Larinae spp.) were encountered, European jays (Garrulus glandarius) were present in all cemeteries except Brompton, and a European green woodpecker (Picus viridis) was spotted in Highgate (Fig. 2A).

In terms of bird species encountered by visitors (Fig. 3A), crows were the most frequently sighted (n = 147), followed by magpies (n = 133), pigeons (n = 129), robins (n = 106), parakeets (n = 91), blackbirds (n = 76), and owls (n = 8). Regarding mammals (Fig. 3B), the majority of visitors encountered grey squirrels (n = 157), while approximately half encountered foxes (n = 89) and cats (n = 76). A third of visitors encountered rats (n = 53), a quarter encountered bats (n = 31), and only a small fraction encountered hedgehogs (n = 6) and rabbits (n = 2), with no reported sightings of deer. Three participants reported spotting mice (Mus spp.) as additional mammals. Among the bird sightings, participants listed European jays (n = 10), blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus, n = 4), and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus, n = 1). Additionally, woodpeckers (Picidae spp, n = 7) and sparrows (Passeridae spp, n = 3) were observed. Our models regarding the number of birds seen yielded significant results, indicating that older visitors and frequent local visitors encountered more bird species. Similarly, frequent local visitors encountered a greater number of mammal species (Supplementary Fig. A5).

Regarding the acceptance of species in the surveyed cemeteries (Fig. 4), among birds (Fig. 4A) robins had the highest acceptance score (95.5), followed by owls (94.3), blackbirds (93.0), magpies (92.6), crows (91.9), pigeons (86.9), and parakeets (82.0). In the exploration of acceptance towards mammals within the surveyed cemeteries (Fig. 4B), hedgehogs emerged with the highest acceptance score (93.2). Following closely behind were bats (91.3), foxes (89.3), rabbits (89.2), grey squirrels (89.2), cats (82.7), rats (75.6), and deer (74.4). Overall, both bird and mammal garnered high acceptance in the surveyed cemeteries, with scores ranging from the lowest of 74.4 for deer to a high of 95.5 for robins (Fig. 4).

Our models revealed no significant findings regarding bird acceptance in cemeteries (Supplementary Table A4), except for one noteworthy exception: there was a trend towards lower acceptance of parakeets among older participants, which approached statistical significance (Supplementary Table A4, P = 0.09). In our examination of acceptance models pertaining to mammals (Supplementary Table A5), we observed that tourists tended to show lower levels of acceptance toward deer compared to local residents. Similarly, older generations displayed reduced acceptance levels toward rats, and grey squirrels. In addition, individuals surveyed in closed cemetery environments (Abney Park, Nunhead, Highgate, Tower Hamlets) displayed a trend towards higher acceptance of fox and bat presence, which approached statistical significance (Supplementary Table A5: fox; P = 0.06, bat; P = 0.09).

Activities observed and rated by visitors

In terms of numbers of visitors observed (Fig. 5A), an average of 97 individuals were recorded within a 30-minute timeframe in Brompton Cemetery, based on the four sets of observations conducted. While Brompton Cemetery emerged as the busiest, Nunhead (43), Abney Park (38), and Tower Hamlets (31), as well as Highgate (31), exhibited comparable activity levels. Conversely, Kensal Green (20) and West Norwood (22) registered as the least frequented. Regarding observed activities, the presence of dog walkers was notably absent in Highgate, Kensal Green, and West Norwood, whereas they constituted significant groups in Abney Park (9) and Nunhead (18). Furthermore, funerals were only observed in Kensal Green (3) and West Norwood (4). In West Norwood, individuals walking with children in strollers (3) constituted one of the largest groups within that cemetery. Moreover, a notable presence of individuals engaged in work or volunteer activities (e.g. maintenance work, gardening) was observed across all cemeteries. The largest counts were recorded in West Norwood (5), Abney Park (4), and Kensal Green (3), while Tower Hamlets, Brompton, and Nunhead each had on average three individuals involved. Highgate had the lowest count with only one person on average in a 30-min time frame observed engaged in such activities. Overall, most individuals observed were on walks in company (32%), solitary walks (24) or dog walking (14%).

Regarding the main reason to visit the cemetery (Fig. 5B, Supplementary Table A3), the majority of survey participants visited the cemetery for solitary walks (n = 44, 25%), followed by those on a touristic visit (n = 35, 20%) and those dog walking (n = 29, 14%). A minority were found to be there for mourning purposes (n = 16, 9%). In terms of the main reasons for visiting the cemetery, Highgate had the highest number of individuals there for tourist purposes (n = 20), followed by Kensal Green (n = 8), Abney (n = 3), and Brompton (n = 3). Conversely, in Brompton Cemetery, the majority of people used it as a shortcut (n = 9). Nunhead emerged as the cemetery most visited for dog walking (n = 13), similar to Abney (n = 8) and Tower Hamlets (n = 7). West Norwood had the greatest number of people there with children or strollers (n = 5) and for taking breaks (n = 4). In terms of mourning, no individuals were encountered in Abney or Nunhead, while a few were found in Highgate (n = 2), Tower Hamlets (n = 2), and most in Kensal Green (n = 3), Norwood (n = 4), and Brompton (n = 5).

Regarding the rating of activities presented to survey participants (Fig. 6), visiting graves emerged as the most accepted (Score = 96.4), followed by going for a walk (Score = 96.0) and visiting war graves (Score = 94.7) or famous graves (Score = 92.4) as well as wildlife viewing (Score = 91.1), educational activities (Score = 90.9) and photography (Score = 88.4). Shortcutting (core 78.0), picnics (Score = 74.3), dog walking (Score = 71.4), socializing (Score = 70.7) and jogging (Score = 70.5) resulted in a rather mixed picture, while most participants did not accept foraging (Score = 54.8), cycling (Score = 45.5), skating/skateboarding (Score = 25.6) and playing sports (Score = 21.7).

In our analysis of acceptance models for various activities (Supplementary Table A6), younger participants exhibited significantly higher acceptance across a wide range of proposed activities, including shortcutting, dog walking, running, foraging, cycling, skating, and playing sports. Additionally, individuals in cemeteries classified as ‘closed’ demonstrated notably greater acceptance of wildlife viewing, educational activities, dog walking, and socializing compared to those in active cemeteries. Furthermore, compared to local visitors, tourists significantly disagreed with a variety of proposed activities within cemetery grounds, including wildlife viewing, shortcutting, picnicking, dog walking, socializing, running, foraging, cycling, skating, and playing sports. The only instances where mourning survey participants significantly disagreed with activities were for educational activities and photography.

Discussion

Our findings offer valuable insights into urban cemeteries, and especially the Magnificent Seven. We tested three hypotheses regarding visits and perceptions (H1-H3). Firstly, we hypothesized that local residents would constitute the majority of visitors, rather than those visiting to mourn deceased relatives (H1). Our findings supported this, revealing that activities such as solitary walks, touristic visits, and dog walking were primary reasons for visits, with mourning being only the main reason for a minority (Fig. 5). Secondly, we anticipated that encounters with wildlife would be infrequent and generally disliked (H2). Contrary to our hypothesis, visitors perceived wildlife positively, with birds like crows, magpies, pigeons, and parakeets commonly observed, alongside occasional mammal sightings like grey squirrels and foxes. Lastly, we proposed that local residents would show higher acceptability towards different activities on cemetery grounds compared to tourists and mourners (H3). While activities like visiting graves and wildlife viewing were widely accepted across visitor groups, certain activities like foraging, cycling, and sports found less favor, especially among older visitors and tourists. Our findings highlight urban cemeteries' diverse roles as sites of remembrance, wildlife habitat, and recreation for local communities.

Transforming tradition: the multifunctionality of urban cemeteries

While cemeteries are traditionally spaces for mourning and remembrance of deceased loved ones (Francis et al. 2000), the Magnificent Seven have evolved into multifunctional environments: They are commonly described as “peaceful,” “beautiful,” and “green,” with additional references to their historic nature and restorative qualities. The study by Swensen et al. (2016) supports this notion, emphasizing cemeteries as vital green spaces that serve beyond mere burial grounds, often overlooked in their potential as restorative environments. Observations and survey responses reveal a majority of visitors utilizing these spaces for solitary walks, companionship, or dog walking, indicating purposes beyond mourning (Fig. 6). Therefore, recognizing the Magnificent Seven but also other urban cemeteries as more than spaces for the deceased is essential; they serve as green sanctuaries facilitating grieving processes while providing locals and non-mourners with recreational opportunities.

Feathers and fur: exploring wildlife observations

The observer's documented animal sightings (Fig. 2) are reflected in those encountered by visitors, with birds prevailing over mammals in frequency (Fig. 3). While crows, pigeons, robins and magpies were frequently encountered by the observer and visitors (Figs 2A and 3A), parakeets, blackbirds and owls were spotted less frequently by visitors. While the absence of owls can be explained by their nocturnal activity (Svensson et al. 2010, Hanmer et al. 2021), as they are active when most cemeteries are closed (Supplementary Table A1), the rare sightings of the frequent urban dwelling blackbirds (Evans et al. 2010, Ibáñez-Álamo and Soler 2010) as well as parakeets (Heald et al. 2020), even more visible due to their bright green color (Svensson et al. 2010, Pirzio-Biroli et al. 2024), seems puzzling. One explanation could be that while crows, pigeons, robins and magpies were often encountered perching on grave stones (Fig. 2A), facilitating their visibility to visitors at eye level, parakeets tend to inhabit high and old trees with cavities (Strubbe and Matthysen 2007, Dodaro and Battisti 2014) and blackbirds build their nests and forage close to the ground (Svensson et al. 2010, Holden and Gregory 2021). Furthermore, blackbirds are a migratory species with additional individuals arriving during the winter season (Woodward et al., 2020), while some migrate southward (Snow 1966). They have also been in decline in the UK (Walker et al. 2020, Newton 2004), especially in urban settings (Gregory and Baillie 1998). The elevated frequency of bird sightings may be attributed to birds coming into closer proximity to humans in cemeteries compared to parks (Morelli et al. 2018). Additionally, the elevated frequency of bird sightings might also be related to wild cemeteries harboring significant habitat for birds (Buchholz et al. 2016), underlining the value of the Magnificent Seven as refuge for urban birds.

In terms of mammal observations, grey squirrels, abundant in urban areas in the UK (Bonnington et al. 2014, Merrick et al. 2016), were the most encountered mammal. Foxes, however, despite being a common sight in London (Harris 1981, Harris and Smith 1987), were observed in only half of the surveyed cemeteries (Fig. 2B), predominantly active ones (Supplementary Table A1), possibly related to increased visibility in managed grasslands and their firmer dog-restrictions. Increased fox acceptance in closed cemeteries (Supplementary Table A5) as well as increased sightings (Fig. 2B), might be linked to animal welfare initiatives in Highgate Cemetery where volunteers treat foxes for mange and tapeworms (Heath 2021), which might lead to encounters with healthy and human-acclimated foxes. While evidence suggests that such care can make wildlife more accustomed to human presence (Perry and Averka 2020), especially with food provision (Shutt and Lees 2021), it is crucial to monitor whether foxes receiving close human care in Highgate might eventually become overly tame, potentially approaching humans who may feel uncomfortable with their proximity (e.g. Supplementary Fig. A4). Conversely, bats, hedgehogs, rabbits and deer were absent in observations and infrequently sighted by visitors. The infrequent sightings of bats could—similar to owls—potentially be elucidated by their nocturnal behavior (Erkert 2000). Moreover, bats are inherently elusive to human observation due to their small size and aerial locomotion (Feldhamer et al. 2002). A current trend of declining hedgehog populations in the UK (Taucher et al. 2020, Yarnell and Pettett 2020) and London (Turner et al. 2022), likely contributes to their infrequent sightings, although hedgehogs have been encountered in Tower Hamlets (Personal communication K. Greenway, 2023). While rabbits are found within the UK (Trout et al. 2000) and are commonly encountered in urban areas, e.g. Stockholm (Bach et al. 2023) or Frankfurt (Ziege et al. 2020), myxomatosis outbreaks starting in the 1950s vastly reduced population numbers in the UK (Sumption and Flowerdew 1985, Ross et al. 1989, Flowerdew et al. 1992), which might explain their absence in our study sites. Deer have been present in London’s Richmond Park for centuries (Wong 2021), and are mostly found outside densely settled areas (Rotherham and Walker 2015), explaining their absence in cemeteries due to spatial constraints.

Furthermore, frequent local visitors showed a broader range of species sightings, indicative of their closer affinity with wildlife in neighboring cemeteries and familiarity with the environment. The influence of age on bird sightings is notable, with older individuals displaying increased observations, potentially attributed to better species recognition (Enzensberger et al. 2022) as well as increased interest in bird watching activities among older generations (Lee et al. 2015).

From tomb to territory: embracing wildlife in urban cemeteries

In terms of acceptance of free roaming wildlife, mammals and birds were generally perceived as positive in the survey cemeteries, with birds being more embraced than mammals (Fig. 5).

For birds, parakeets faced the most disagreement (Fig. 5), likely due to their invasive status in the UK, their associated negative impacts on native species, and their noisy calls that can disrupt the peaceful environment of cemeteries (Newson et al. 2011, Peck 2013, Dodaro and Battisti 2014, Heald et al. 2020). Pirzio-Biroli et al. (2024) found that parakeets are generally perceived negatively but simultaneously liked because of their aesthetics. Unexpectedly, pigeons elicited predominantly favorable responses, with only a minority of participants expressing disagreement. Our findings challenge prior studies that found pigeons to be perceived in a negative light (Baker et al. 2020, Sweet et al. 2024), which could be attributed to pigeons acting as an abundant prey resource, supporting the presence of other species (Capoccia et al. 2018).

Among wild mammals, deer roaming sparked the highest level of disagreement. This could potentially be attributed to the considerable size of deer and the limited habitat available within cemeteries (Table 1) as deer typically require expansive territories (Wahlström and Liberg 1995, Hemami et al. 2004). Next to deer, rats and cats also faced a minority of disagreement (Fig. 5). Dislike of rats roaming may stem from their pest status (Baker et al. 2020, Delahaye 2021), while cats might be disliked due to their impact on birds (Trouwborst and Somsen 2020, Fardell et al. 2023). Regarding grey squirrels, while a minority saw their roaming as unacceptable, their presence in cemeteries was mostly seen as accepted (Fig. 5). This aligns with indications that despite scientific evidence of their negative ecosystem impacts, especially on red squirrels (Tompkins et al. 2003, Broughton 2020) and birds (Broughton 2020), the general public does not know about these impacts (Dunn et al. 2018) and therefore accepts their presence (Dunn et al. 2021). Further, the common presence of grey squirrels in and around London (Mayle and Broome 2013) might lead to greater familiarity and acceptance, as their charismatic and cute appearance might enhance their acceptance (Jarić et al. 2020). The remaining mammals, foxes, bats, rabbits and hedgehogs encountered minimal opposition (Fig. 5), despite the typical association of fear with foxes (König 2008, Kimmig et al. 2020), as well as bats (Eklöf and Rydell 2021, Straka et al. 2024), and rabbits potentially causing damage in cemeteries (Plumwood 2007).

Acceptance regarding the roaming of birds showed no significant influences (Supplementary Table A4), while for mammals, age and distance to cemeteries influenced perceptions (Supplementary Table A5). Here, older generations' lower acceptance of invasive species (e.g. parakeets, grey squirrels) aligns with previous studies suggesting they favor stricter management of neophytes (Potgieter et al. 2019) and neobiota (Bremner and Park 2007, Sharp et al. 2011). This may be linked to greater knowledge of non-native animals (Sosa et al. 2021). For grey squirrels, negative views among older generations may arise from an enhanced awareness of their negative impacts linked to their closer temporal proximity to the decline of red squirrels due to competition (Dunn et al. 2018, 2021). However, this is not universally applicable, as relationships with invasive species can be more complex. For example, locals may form emotional attachments to such species (Beever et al. 2019, Crowley et al. 2019), often driven by their charismatic qualities (Jarić et al. 2020). However, mourning as the main purpose of cemeteries (Francis et al. 2000) showed no significant influence on the perception of roaming of species, suggesting the potential for more wildlife-friendly cemetery designs.

Lastly, the elevated societal acceptance of generally rather disliked or controversial species, such as parakeets (Mori et al. 2020, Pirzio-Biroli et al. 2024), pigeons (Sweet et al. 2024), grey squirrels (Dunn et al. 2018, 2021) and rats (Baker et al. 2020, Moesch et al. 2024a), corresponds with findings underscoring the significance of the presence of any wildlife in augmenting the attractiveness of local green spaces (Folmer et al. 2016) and findings that the perception of wildlife tends to be more favorable in wilder green spaces (Cameron et al. 2020), as exemplified by the Magnificent Seven (Fig. 1, Table 1). However, these findings of high agreement to the presence of birds and wild mammals in cemetery grounds might be linked to the “nimbyism” concept, where wildlife is more accepted if it does not directly affect personal property (Baker et al. 2020, Sweet et al. 2024). An exemplary illustration of this phenomenon is the notable high acceptance of foxes (Fig. 5), despite being commonly perceived as problematic in private gardens (Baker et al. 2020) and concerns regarding disease transmission and potential attacks (König 2008, Stewart and Cole 2015, Bridge and Harris 2020).

Recreation and reflection: navigating activities in cemetery spaces

Among the array of activities observed and surveyed in the cemeteries, grave visiting and going on a walk were the most accepted activities (Fig. 6). This underscores the value attributed to grave visitation and mourning, which remains deeply intertwined with the traditional purpose of cemeteries. Furthermore, the widespread acceptance of solitary walks underscores the significance of cemeteries providing benefits akin to leisurely strolls in green spaces for mental and physical health (Nordh et al. 2017, Lai et al. 2019). Our findings that activities like picnicking, dog walking, socializing, and jogging yielded mixed reactions underscores people's desire to maintain the peacefulness of cemeteries. Unlike parks, which can be bustling and noisy (Brambilla and Maffei 2006), cemeteries like Abney Park are valued for their serene and calm environment (Rice 2022). Picnicking, in particular, has been consistently regarded as awkward or inappropriate in cemetery settings, as supported by findings from Nordh et al. (2023). However, the term 'socializing' may be interpreted differently, leaving room for discussion. For instance, 'socializing' could be linked with activities such as drinking alcohol and loud music, particularly among younger generations (Townshend and Roberts 2013, Van Aalst and Brands 2021) seen as anti-social behavior in cemetery grounds (Deering 2010). Additionally, Abney Park is recognized for instances of public sexual activity involving individuals from the queer community (Gandy 2012, Nowak and Roynesdal 2022), further illustrating the varied interpretations of socializing. Therefore, it stands to reason that activities especially those adding a louder soundscape (e.g. socializing, picnicking) or a those seen ethically questionable (e.g. public sexual activities, skate boarding) could disrupt the peaceful atmosphere that such a sanctuary provides. Such serene spaces are scarce within a bustling metropolis like London, making their preservation as the unique place they have evolved to more crucial. Supporting this, survey participants viewed activities such as cycling, skateboarding, and playing sports as least acceptable (Fig. 6). The generational divide in acceptance of activities suggests a shifting societal attitude towards the use of urban cemeteries, with younger generations demonstrating greater openness to recreational pursuits within these settings, mirrored by similar studies (Goh and Ching 2020, Rae 2021, Nordh et al. 2022). However, such a divide in acceptable activities in cemeteries also depends on national context, e.g. a comparison by Długoński et al. (2022) found that Germans rather saw cemeteries as part of public greenspaces in cities, while Polish people viewed them as sacred areas meant for quietness and resting. Further, studies focusing on cemeteries in South America—especially linked to anthropogenic pressure (Klaufus 2016b, 2021, Neckel et al. 2017) also indicate differing views of cemeteries, emphasizing how cultural attitudes and local governance might shape their cemetery perception, use and management. While a significant majority of observed individuals and survey participants were dog walkers (Fig. 5A and B), the acceptance of dog walking in cemeteries emerged as particularly contentious (Fig. 6). This contention may be attributed to concerns regarding dog fouling, which might be viewed as highly disrespectful when left in burial sites (Skår et al. 2018, Nordh et al. 2023). Evidence suggests that dog walkers might overlook the significance of burial sites in urban cemeteries, perceiving them merely as park spaces where they unleash their dogs (Rae 2021). Furthermore, the presence of unleashed dogs might have negative impacts on wildlife (Beasley et al. 2022, Zamora-Nasca and Lambertucci 2022), as in cemeteries with strict dog bans or leash policies (Supplementary Table A2), more foxes were encountered. However, Kensal Green and West Norwood, featuring strict dog bans (Supplementary Fig. A1, Table A1), exhibited the lowest levels of visitation (Fig. 6), excluding the also dog-free Highgate due to its tourist attraction status (Table 1). Dog walking is a significant and common activity in cemeteries, contributing to a more vibrant atmosphere (Lai et al. 2019, Holleran 2023). Therefore, it is crucial to achieve a delicate balance between moving beyond cemeteries' historical role solely as sites for mourning, through the consideration of dog walking, and simultaneously establishing a secure environment for wildlife, visitors and mourners who are less accepting of dogs in cemeteries. However, the difficulty in implementing such policies is evident, as seen in the uproar sparked by the proposal for a dog-on-leash policy in Abney Park in October 2023 (Hackney Gazette 2023, Hackney Citizen 2023). The contentious nature of the proposal led to widespread opposition, prompting the council to retract the plan in March 2024 (Hackney Gazette 2024, Hackney Citizen 2024). Variances in cemetery policies regarding dog access (Supplementary Fig. A1) underscore the complex balance between accommodating recreational activities, offering habitat for wildlife, and preserving the dignity of graves. Building on the recommendations of Nordh et al. (2023), the establishment of designated activity zones can help mitigate conflicts between dogs, wildlife, and other visitors in cemeteries. Brompton, for instance, successfully implements this strategy by creating specific areas for on-lead dog walking and zones where dogs are not allowed (Supplementary Table A1).

Furthermore, visitors to 'closed' cemeteries displayed a higher receptivity to varied activities, indicating a potential evolution in the perception of cemetery spaces from purely somber to more active and vibrant community hubs. Tourists tended to disagree with proposed activities, which might be due to the influence of different cultural and religious backgrounds on attitudes towards cemetery use based on their country of origin. This raises questions regarding the intended audience for cemetery amenities and activities, with a preference emerging for catering to the needs and values of the local community.

Limitations

Considering our findings, we identified six limitations of the study that should be adequately addressed in future cemetery surveys. Firstly, the research was carried out during the fall/winter, which raises questions regarding the generalizability of the findings to other seasons (e.g. singing birds in spring). It is also plausible that social dynamics fluctuate between seasons, potentially impacting the outcomes of the study. Secondly, our study focused exclusively on the set of seven old Victorian cemeteries in London, which are known for their cultural heritage and are under legal protections. However, these cemeteries represent only a specific subset of burial grounds. To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of wildlife as well as activity acceptance on urban cemeteries, future investigations should encompass a broader range of cemeteries, including newer ones. Thirdly, a potential limitation of the study is that, in addition to the seasonal influence, the size of cemeteries (Table 1) and the extent of road networks within them (Supplementary Fig. A1) might potentially influence species encounters, which could only be addressed by a higher number of surveyors and observers present. Fourth, the potential lack of diversity within the participant demographic, as the majority of respondents were of white ethnic background (n = 153), which may restrict the generalizability of our findings to more diverse populations, especially in a diverse metropole like London. Hence, future studies should strive to diversify their participant demographics, potentially utilizing online surveys, and consider the influence of national context and individuals' upbringing within their perception models. Fifth, as indicated by the slight discrepancy between observed activities and the primary reasons reported by participants for visiting cemeteries (Fig. 5), we faced challenges in reaching certain groups, for instance we refrained from approaching individuals mourning, as well as surveying bikers, skaters, or joggers due to their rapid movement. Additionally, potential underrepresentation of individuals in company, which were the majority within observed activities (Fig. 6), might be another limitation. The prevalence of respondents in solitary circumstances may have biased the findings, as those in company were less inclined to participate. Lastly, the study only examined a set of birds and mammals, overlooking the potential presence of other taxa within cemeteries. For example, Highgate Cemetery has been found to be a refuge for rare spiders (Henriques 2021), suggesting the need for broader taxonomic investigations in future research.

Conclusion

Our findings underscore the multifaceted nature of cemeteries, necessitating a nuanced approach that balances the preservation of solemnity with the promotion of community engagement and ecological sustainability. Urban cemeteries have the potential to transform into vibrant spaces reminiscent of the Magnificent Seven cemeteries. Just as wild animals perceive these areas as everyday spaces for activities like eating, strolling, and resting (Niesner et al. 2021), humans may gradually begin to view cemeteries in a similar light. However, there exists a dual desire among people for green spaces to be managed yet incorporate wilderness and biodiversity (Özgüner and Kendle 2006), as echoed in our visitors' descriptions (e.g. “neglected”). Finding the middle ground is essential to satisfy both public and biodiversity interests and create diverse habitats for wildlife. The Magnificent Seven cemeteries exemplify how initially orderly and manicured spaces can evolve into wild, overgrown areas where visitors and wildlife coexist harmoniously.

Lastly, not all cemeteries need to be as wild and overgrown as the Magnificent Seven. But our results show that wilderness and sacred grounds for the dead can overlap and built a new restorative green space within usually busy cities. The survival of inner-city cemeteries depends on its rejuvenation: If spaces for the dead become more alive through openness for local communities and act as actors in nature-based solutions, they can withstand and survive the growing pressure of land conversion for housing and infrastructure in urban areas.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our gratitude to Martin Paley and Sarah Dufour for their invaluable assistance in enhancing the survey and their support during the pretest days at the cemeteries. Furthermore, we thank to Joao Manuel Cordeiro Pereira for his valuable feedback on our manuscript. We extend our sincere appreciation to all seven cemeteries and their respective Friends of the Cemeteries groups for their invaluable support of this study. Special thanks are due to Candy Edwards (Nunhead Cemetery), Nick Powell (Highgate Cemetery), Kenneth Greenway (Tower Hamlets), Kim Hart (West Norwood Cemetery), and Charli Kerr (Brompton Cemetery) for their exceptional assistance and collaboration. Further we want to thank the Political Ecology, Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (PEBES) research group provided from the Geography Department of Kings College London for their support and insights into enhancing this study. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the Circle U European University Alliance for providing funding for the research stay in London and facilitating the exchange and collaboration between King's College London and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.

Author contributions

Simon Sebastian Moesch (Conceptualization [equal], Data curation [lead], Formal analysis [lead], Investigation [lead], Methodology [lead], Visualization [lead], Writing—original draft [lead], Writing—review & editing [lead]), Zosia Ladds (Conceptualization [equal], Methodology [equal], Writing—original draft [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), and Robert Francis (Conceptualization [equal], Methodology [equal], Supervision [equal], Writing—original draft [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal])

Supplementary data

Supplementary data is available at t JUECOL online.

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Funding

None declared.

Data availability

The data used in this paper will be available in Dryad Digital Repository.

Ethics statement

The study was ethically approved by the Research Ethics Office on behalf of the Kings College London Research Ethics Committee (MRSP-23/24–40042). In adherence to ethical standards, participants explicitly indicated their willingness to partake in the study by providing written informed consent. This consent was obtained through a deliberate action, typically in the form of agreement to the initial question (Q1) presented within the survey. In the realm of scientific research, participants were granted the autonomy to abstain from engaging in the survey altogether, to choose not to provide any responses, or to discontinue their participation at any point throughout the study. This approach ensured the integrity of the data collection process while respecting the rights and preferences of the participants. Such flexibility fosters a more ethical and inclusive research environment, allowing individuals to exercise their agency in accordance with their comfort levels and personal boundaries.

References