Why Countries Choose Incineration or Landfilling

When communities choose how to handle their waste, they usually end up weighing two big options: burning it or burying it. Both systems are widely used across the world, both come with trade-offs, and neither is perfect. This lesson gives you a clear, grounded picture of how incineration and landfilling perform when you look at efficiency, environmental impact, and long-term sustainability. The goal is simple: help you see where each method fits and why neither can carry the full load of modern waste on its own.

Space Use and Land Impact

One of the biggest differences between the two systems is the space they require. Landfills need vast, dedicated areas where large volumes of waste can be compacted and covered. Once a landfill is full, the site must be sealed, monitored, and maintained for decades. That land becomes essentially unusable, and closely regulated due to long-term environmental risks.

Incineration plants, on the other hand, take up a fraction of the space. Their footprint is much smaller because most of the waste is burned rather than stored. What remains is a concentrated ash residue. While this residue still needs to be landfilled, the total volume is significantly reduced. This efficiency is one of the main reasons dense countries with limited available land, like the Netherlands, Denmark, and Japan heavily on incineration.

Emissions and Environmental Trade-offs

Although incineration reduces physical waste volumes, it produces air emissions that have to be carefully controlled. Modern facilities are fitted with advanced filtration systems to capture harmful pollutants, but they still generate greenhouse gases and require continuous monitoring. The benefit is that, unlike older plants, new installations are much cleaner and far more tightly regulated.

Landfills avoid the chimney emissions of incinerators, but they bring a different kind of challenge. As waste breaks down underground, it releases methane, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO₂. Well-managed landfills collect and burn this gas, but even good systems can’t capture everything. Additionally, any breach in the protective layers can contaminate soil or groundwater. Where incinerators raise concerns above ground, landfills raise concerns below it.

When comparing the two over the full life cycle, incineration typically comes out ahead on emissions, especially when it replaces fossil-fuel electricity or heat. Landfills tend to be worse for climate unless their methane capture rate is extremely high.

The Cost of Landfilling vs. Incineration

Cost often determines whether a country burns or buries its waste. Incineration is far more expensive upfront: building a modern waste-to-energy plant requires major capital, advanced emission filters, and highly skilled operators. Operating costs stay high, though energy production helps offset some of the expense. Because of this, incinerators depend heavily on gate fees and long-term contracts to remain financially viable.

Landfills are cheaper to build and run, especially where land is plentiful. Their main costs involve proper lining, leachate systems, gas pipes, and decades of post-closure monitoring. Day-to-day operation is relatively simple compared with running a high-temperature incinerator. Revenue is minimal,but overall, landfilling remains the lower-cost option per tonne.

This economic contrast explains much of the global picture: wealthier, space-constrained countries tend to favour incineration despite higher costs, while nations with more land and tighter budgets rely on landfills.

Energy Recovery and Resource Efficiency

Energy recovery is one area where incineration has a clear advantage. Waste incinerated can be converted into electricity and heat, helping to offset some of the environmental footprint of disposal. The efficiency varies by facility, but many modern plants produce enough energy to power thousands of households.

Landfills can also generate energy through methane capture systems. The gas extracted from decomposing waste can be burned for electricity. This method can produce meaningful amounts of power, but it’s highly dependent on the age, composition, and management of the landfill. Compared to incineration, the process is slower, less predictable, and more influenced by long-term waste degradation.

Long-term Sustainability Considerations

Neither method qualifies as a sustainable solution on its own. 

Both are end-of-pipe systems, meaning they deal with waste only after it has already been created. Incineration is sometimes misunderstood as a quick fix, but it depends heavily on a steady flow of burnable waste to remain financially viable. Landfills, meanwhile, are permanent liabilities that require monitoring long after closure.

Sustainability involves reducing the need for both systems. The more a community recycles, repairs, reuses, and composts, the less pressure it puts on incinerators and landfills. This is why modern waste strategies often treat both disposal systems as the last steps in a much longer chain of prevention and resource management. The real opportunity lies in cutting waste at the source so that we rely less on burning and burying in the first place.