Seeing Users and Citizens as Whole Human Beings

Instead of asking people how they would like cemeteries to develop, we took a broader more holistic approach. We focused on getting a deep and nuanced understanding of the cemetery space, and of the plurality of needs that must be balanced within this space. Instead of asking directly about wishes and preferences, we asked how people use the cemetery today. We explored the habits, routines and behavior that shaped their lives as a whole. Our approach is to see people not as users or citizens, but as whole human beings. We wanted to understand how their use of the cemetery fit the greater puzzle of their everyday life and their worldview.

When we did talk to them about how they felt the space should develop, we used cards, pictures, and maps, as a way to inspire and frame the discussions. Seeing as it is so difficult to imagine change that you haven’t yet experienced, we gave our respondents a predefined context. A creative playground with concrete tools to make the discussions more tangible. For instance, we used a range of visual cues to discuss the boundaries of acceptable behavior and activities in the cemetery. The respondents would organize a range of cards with pictures and words, and categorize them according to how acceptable they were. Should picnics, football, or rock concerts be a part of the future of the cemetery? How did they feel about QR codes on gravestones that gave you information about famous deceased people? And what about weddings? Would that be acceptable within the cemetery space? This methodological approach yielded some very interesting insights. Instead of discussing who wanted more benches or better streetlights, we were able to move away from the subjective wish lists, and on to a far more important debate about what kind of space the cemetery is, and what we can and should do with this urban space.

From Abstract Intentions to Concrete Choices

What we also discovered is that if you ask people on an abstract level how their local cemetery ought to develop, they tend to be open to anything – “as long as there is room for everyone”. That was a mantra we heard again and again. “This is everyone’s space, everyone should be a part of it”. But what does that mean? How exactly do we welcome all these new changes and innovative ideas, while also being respectful of everyone’s different needs? Interestingly, as soon as we went from an abstract to a more concrete level, people were far more critical of certain ideas. Now they had to prioritize, to evaluate, and to choose. Suddenly, they had a very tangible and often provocative starting point to discuss from.

For instance, we included a picture of a parking lot. A flea market. Triggers that sparked heated debates, about why these things were so obviously unacceptable. This approach forced respondents to argue why it is unthinkable to have a flea market, but not a jazz concert? In this particular case, the flea market was a no-go, because it had a commercial aspect. Money – however little – was changing hands and that was not acceptable. A jazz concert would be okay, a pop concert too, but loud rock not so much. The challenge then becomes assessing exactly where the line should be drawn – when is a concert too loud? What genre or artist would fit the atmosphere of the cemetery? Who should be making these types of judgment calls and what should be the logic or criteria of assessment?

We discovered that there were certain criteria that people used for assessing new initiatives. For instance, cultural events like concerts and plays had to be sufficiently mainstream, not to alienate certain groups. An interesting illustration of this schism was people’s reactions to a new dance institute that opened in the old chapel at Bispebjerg Cemetery. Our respondents seemed to agree that this initiative was in poor taste, and we initially thought it was the notion of people dancing in a chapel, that felt wrong to them. As we digged deeper we found that, rather, the problem was that the institute teaches hip-hop dance, which felt like a cultural expression that was too niche. Because our respondents felt that this activity was not aimed at the broader general public, many of them did not approve. They would, on the other hand, find it acceptable to have fitness sessions in the chapel, as they felt this was a kind of activity many different types of people in the neighborhood would be able to take part in. Thus, the idea of inviting physical activity into this space was not the issue – rather, people’s concern was to make sure the cemetery remained a place for everyone.

Deep Human Insights as a Vehicle for Innovation

These discussions gave us great insights into the patterns and logics behind the seemingly subjective and idiosyncratic ideas of what is acceptable in a cemetery, and how this space can and should develop. Our approach allowed us to get behind what people say, when they express intentions and abstract opinions, and find out what happens when they are asked to choose between very concrete future scenarios, for a space they care about. We argue that this type of approach and methodology is needed, in order to truly achieve deep human insights that can give both content and direction to innovation processes.

If we really want public participation to be an integral part of these processes, we need to go beyond hearings that only produce lists of more or less random opinions and preferences, and that are often the result of a biased setting and an expression of unequal power relations. If public participation is to play a valuable and central role in urban development, we must use it to bring out deep, nuanced and robust insights into the dreams, frustrations, and hopes of real human beings.

Opportunity #1: Create a Clear Identity and a Distinct Profile for Each Cemetery

Cemeteries are different from most other urban spaces, in that we seem to have an abstract a priori idea of what we will find inside the walls, even before we enter the cemetery space. We often think we know what to expect in terms of the general look, function and atmosphere of a cemetery. Perhaps this is due to the fact that these spaces rarely focus on emphasizing their distinct individual features or characteristics. While almost every other corner of a modern city is defining its own flavor and style – and while different segments seek out the areas and neighborhoods that best match their identity – cemeteries are for everyone, and are therefore almost by default generic in the way they communicate about themselves. But in fact, these urban spaces each have characteristics that are very much their own. The difference lies in making a conscious choice to communicate this and put a label, so to speak, on the cemetery as a particular kind of place.

Based on the insights from our study we advised the city council to work towards more differentiated profiles for each cemetery. These profiles would be based on local citizens’ perceptions of the cemetery, what role they think the place should play in the neighborhood, and how they would like to see it develop in the future. Furthermore, the profiles should build on both the physical layout and characteristics of the cemetery, and on the unique features they each have to offer to the area. For some of the larger cemeteries, that have patches of forests and a great botanical variety, a focus on a nature profile seems fruitful. While cemeteries that house old, historic buildings could emphasize their capacity as a space for learning about local history and architecture. Other more urbanized cemeteries might work towards communicating their role as a shared burial ground and meeting place for a variety of cultures, ethnicities and social groups. Here, we envision a multicultural profile that emphasizes, for instance, the cemetery’s role as a place to teach school children about different religions, rites and rituals.

There is a wide range of benefits in creating differentiated profiles for the city’s cemeteries. Firstly, the cemeteries will become more visible and more present in the minds of people in the local community. This enables the cemeteries to tell the story of who they are and what they offer, in a way that makes them more relevant to both their current and potential users. A tension that we discovered in the way people used the cemeteries, was the tension between everyday users who felt at home there, and non-users who felt alienated. By being more visible in the neighborhood and communicating a clear profile, the cemeteries would invite the non-users in, and give them a reason to make this urban space a part of their everyday life.

Secondly, this heightened visibility will be supported by a clear visual identity that is communicated in the local library, in public buildings, and other key places in the local community. This will create a new situation where the users ‘meet’ the cemetery in the places where they live their everyday lives. As it is now, we are rarely reminded of the cemetery unless we are physically there. This is different from the way we think about other public spaces or institutions. For instance, you can have a clear vision of places like Tate Modern or Central Park, even though you’ve never visited. They have a distinct visual identity that can be communicated across borders. In the same way, the cemetery’s profile should exist separately from its physical space.

Thirdly, if the cemetery is more present in people’s minds, and if they have a clear idea of what the it offers and what it stands for, they are also able to choose a cemetery that suits their identity, their needs and their preferences. It used to be that you ‘belong to’ a cemetery based on geography. But why should this very fundamental choice not be based on emotions, identity and temperament, rather than where you happen to live? It is only fitting that the (post-)modern individual, so used to customized, tailor-made products and services, should get to choose from a range of cemeteries that each represent different experiences and values.

And finally, by communicating that a cemetery is, for instance, a nature cemetery you attract a certain type of user. Creating distinct profiles will be a fruitful tool for the city council to target the type of user – and thus the type of user behavior – that the cemetery wishes to encourage and promote. By doing this they will solve the tension between on the one hand, being ‘a space for everyone’, while at the same time sanctioning certain types of behavior on the cemetery grounds.