Search

Current approaches and cultures for the economic evaluations of environmental and health policies may suffer from excessive reliance on a standard neoclassic economic toolbox that neglects alternative perspectives. This may prematurely limit the spectrum of available policy options. Here we show how the inclusion of neglected currents of thought such as non-Ricardian economics, bioeconomics and a set of qualitative-quantitative methods from post-normal science leads to richer perspectives for a more inclusive uses of quantitative evidence, and opens the analysis to more possible futures. We also present some case studies in the energy, water, health and climate domains that highlight the point in a practical context for a more policy-oriented audience. We situate our analysis in the context of recent calls in the EU for the inclusion of more perspectives from the social sciences and the humanities in environmental assessment works. • Current impact assessments in the field of environmental policies suffer from lack of diversity in economic thought. • A standard neoclassic economic toolbox appears to dominate methodological choices. • Non-Ricardian economics and bioeconomics can provide some diversity as well as robustness. • Also useful would be a set of qualitative-quantitative methods derived from post-normal science. • These new lenses are tested on four different relevant test cases in a European Union context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]