Abstract: One of the main objectives of implementing a circular economy system is the reuse and recycling of resources. Closing material cycles and renewable-based electricity and fuel production are essential to such systems. To achieve a high degree of circularity, waste streams have to be rethought and integrated from a cradle-to-grave to a cradle-to-cradle approach. However, today’s circular economy strategies mostly focus on current waste streams, while past waste streams, buried in landfills, could play an important role when recovering resources and energy. Hence, a well-thought-out circular economy strategy should include the re-integration of past waste streams. A grave-to-cradle approach is needed. Landfill mining (LFM), i.e. the excavation and processing of formerly buried waste to energy and materials, aims at utilizing these past waste streams. Doing so could bear potential economic, environmental, and societal burdens and benefits. Originating from landfill remediation projects, landfill mining has been further developed towards resource recovery. Today, using up-to-date technologies and following the most stringent environmental and social criteria, the concept is also known as enhanced landfill mining (ELFM). Throughout the relevant scientific literature, most attention is given to advances in technological development for (E)LFM, as well as its techno-economic and environmental assessment. Societal assessments of LFM projects are rare and treat societal impacts only selectively or from unilateral societal perspectives. If stakeholders are included in societal (E)LFM assessments, only industrial actors, like landfill operators, and governmental actors are asked to participate. A holistic stakeholder assessment for (E)LFM is missing. Moreover, the diverse societal impacts – ranging from socio-environmental benefits through the mitigation of health risks, over socio-economic benefits through land reclamation, and social benefits through community engagement, for example – are either only studied selectively or evaluated as one, entangling various societal effects. A holistic and specific assessment of societal factors affecting (E)LFM implementation is also missing. This thesis uses an anticipatory approach to tackle these challenges. This approach aims to integrate stakeholder values and include uncertainty through the use of multiple social perspectives and prospective modeling tools. In-depth interviews were conducted to develop a typology of (E)LFM stakeholders and to elicit the most important stakeholder needs. Stakeholders were selected along an extended quadruple helix framework, including industrial, institutional, scientific, and community actors. Furthermore, using system dynamics tools, namely causal loop diagrams, societal systems of (E)LFM could be visualized and analyzed. Finally, a discrete choice experiment was conducted to evaluate a set of societal factors representing the conversion of a landfill into a public park for recreational use. The in-depth interviews included landfill operators, technology providers and incubators, local governments and governmental institutions, as well as researchers and community members. To structure the diverse perspectives of stakeholders on (E)LFM, five stakeholder archetypes were developed: The Entrepreneur, the Engaged Citizen, the Visionary, the Technology Enthusiast, and the Skeptic. The archetypes capture important characteristics and opinions approaching (E)LFM implementation. They differ in risk perceptions, knowledge base, influence on (E)LFM’s systemic and project implementation, and their main concerns and motivations. Furthermore, 18 stakeholder needs were derived from the interviews. This includes societal, environmental, regulatory, and techno-economic needs. The needs are put in relation to the affected stakeholders and sustainability dimensions. Uncertainties that could potentially be reduced through the fulfillment of each need are qualitatively assessed. Quantitatively, stakeholders were focusing on societal, regulatory, and techno-economic needs, whereas qualitative emphasis was given to environmental needs, especially the avoidance of impacts from primary resource production. When meeting stakeholder needs fairly, intra- and inter-dimensional trade-offs have to be considered as different perspectives can lead to different and sometimes contradicting implications for (E)LFM implementation. To conceptualize societal systems of (E)LFM, causal loop diagrams were developed following system dynamics methodology. The visualizations show how (E)LFM is embedded in its societal context. Variables comprising the societal impact were analyzed, and mechanisms affecting the public project acceptance and the market acceptance of (E)LFM products worked out. Leverage points were identified, helping (E)LFM practitioners and policymakers to minimize potential risks and maximize potential benefits. To these count technological choices, stakeholder involvement, the after-use, quality standards, and LFM regulation in general, amongst others. To disentangle and evaluate societal impacts of (E)LFM, a discrete choice experiment was conducted deriving the utility of five distinct attributes: the size of a landfill, the project duration, job creation, disamenities, and climate impacts. To determine the willingness to pay, perform scenario analysis, and model policy simulations, a sixth attribute was added representing a cost factor for project implementation. Environmental considerations are most important to the sample, while project duration and disamenities also play a significant role. The scenario analysis and policy simulations show that taxing households for (E)LFM implementation is a viable option, especially for environmentally beneficial projects. Nonetheless, a favorable combination of the remaining attributes can compensate utility losses for environmentally questionable projects. As risks of classical landfill management practices are likely to grow with an updated evaluation of after-care periods lasting up to 100 years and more, positive effects of (E)LFM become even more noteworthy. Nonetheless, (E)LFM projects also pose potential risks like groundwater contamination or the reintroduction of hazardous materials. If executed poorly, (E)LFM projects could potentially do more harm than good. A mix of policy measures is recommended to push a major part of potential (E)LFM projects from being environmentally beneficial and economically inefficient to being societally, environmentally, and economically favorable. Overall, more research is necessary to integrate (E)LFM into circular economy strategies and build a sensible grave-to-cradle approach.