Sustainable Death? Promoting Adoption of Green Passing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, I enjoyed reading this timely publication and will be glad to see it (I hope and recommend) pass on to publication.  Here are just a few thoughts about minor improvements that may help:

In context, the explanation of Multilayered Installation Design is clear and effective.  But I think a sentence or two in the first section would help clarify this for readers--I was initially concerned that the theoretical approach would overwhelm the importance of the topic.

There seems to be a missing reference on page 12, line 400.  

In the limitations section, the authors discuss religious diversity and overall less religious attitudes as relevant factors.  My sense is that both of these may actually support the project. 

Regarding the former, some religious traditions encourage talking about death.  For example, The Episcopal Church in the United States actively encourages its members to write wills.  I expect something similar is the case in the Anglican tradition in the UK.  If I understand the framework correctly, this encouragement may be a relevant part of the social layer.

Regarding the point about the decrease in religious attitudes, the source the authors cite also discusses a greater emphasis on personal spirituality.  If so, connecting this emphasis to ecospirituality may be a benefit of the project rather than a limitation as such.



There are two places where I think the authors' discussion of religion may actually strengthen their case.  

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 very much for the useful feedback on our paper and the positive evaluations. We are confident that we have been able to address all the comments raised in the review. Changes are highlighted in green in the updated paper. Please find further detail on the changes we have made in response to your feedback below:

“In context, the explanation of Multilayered Installation Design is clear and effective.  But I think a sentence or two in the first section would help clarify this for readers--I was initially concerned that the theoretical approach would overwhelm the importance of the topic.”

• We have adjusted the introduction slightly to make the importance of the content of the intervention more salient vis-a-vis the pedagogical goal (section 1, lines 45-59).

 “Some religious traditions encourage talking about death. For example, The Episcopal Church in the United States actively encourages its members to write wills. I expect something similar is the case in the Anglican tradition in the UK. If I understand the framework correctly, this encouragement may be a relevant part of the social layer.”

• We have added clergy and religious organisations as a stakeholder and a discussion of how to connect pre-existing social norms to the green passing initiative (section 5.1.6, lines 311-322, section 5.4.3, lines 508-530).

“There seems to be a missing reference on page 12, line 400.” 



• Thank you for spotting this, we have added the appropriate reference.

Reviewer 2 Report

This essay assumes the legal and societal framework of the UK. It assumes a government that handles death & body disposal, in a manner that differs somewhat from the situation in USA. In the latter, private enterprise reigns regarding burials & funerals. Religious groups - many of which would support "green burial" if this were available, have a stake too. But because of the private enterprise situation, the primary concern for the majority of Americans will be cost. The article claims that green burial is cheaper than other options- in the USA that it not necessarily the case. Indeed, anything marketed as "organic and natural" is likely to cost more. That is partly because it appeals to the "spiritual but not religious" among the population, although there is really nothing anti-religious about the practice of green burial. (Note: Judaism & Islam forbid embalming, and demand simplicity in burials) 

The essay assumes the government regulating and overseeing, and therefore a public campaign in favor of "green passing" is like a public campaign against smoking, or for Covid vaccination. Or in favor of organ donation- which at one point was controversial here. The solution now is to have persons sign up as organ donors when they apply for a driver's license. In other words, when they are not thinking about death at all. To say "NO" one has to have decided anti-donor views. (For some, "sign an organ donor card, and its a death warrant. They won't do anything to save your life.") Presumably, the authors  of this paper might endorse something like this pragmatic solution, although they advocate that people do at least minimal contemplation of their own deaths. Note that impoverished/homeless persons would not get any "opt outs." 

I think the article could be improved if this were made explicit. If it were clearer just how much the government could make green passing a default option, and, realistically, how much funeral expenses dominate the discussions for most persons. Also, why not enlist clergy in the campaign, since they are stakeholders in at least a percentage of cases? They could advocate for simple, natural body disposal as they often do in the USA for organ donation. 

The authors' models emphasize individual decisions, while public policies are somehow obscured here. Changes in public policies are possible, but the framework for personal decision-making needs to be clarified.

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 very much for the useful feedback on our paper and the positive evaluations.

The discussion of burial practices in the United States is fascinating and shows potential steps to develop the initiative further. We also welcome the application of our proposed intervention model to a different context, and we believe the immediate differences that become apparent when translating the initiative from the UK to the US show the usefulness of the MID approach and the importance of being context-sensitive when designing interventions.

We agree with R2 that ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ products are often sold at a markup, although in the case of burials ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ will mean less in relation to many rituals and practices, which is why it is not surprising why these will be cheaper, particularly at scale. This of course raises interesting implications for widening people’s ability to participate in sustainable behaviours and also begs the question whether there is market potential to use the higher price-anchoring for sustainable products and services as an element for redistribution. We do believe, however, that this goes beyond the scope of this paper.

Following the suggestions provided, we have added clergy and religious organisations as a stakeholder, and a discussion of how to connect pre-existing social norms to the green passing initiative through an interfaith route (section 5.1.6, lines 311-322, section 5.4.3, lines 508-530). Changes are highlighted in green in the updated paper.