A systems science leverage point analysis of climate change advocacy.

Failure of governments across the world to address climate change has fuelled social movements focused on climate-related policy and action. Research analysing these movements has focused mainly on the types of strategies employed including blockades and occupations, marches and petitions, divestment, boycotts and litigation as well as how groups are framing climate change as a problem. What has been largely missed are the ways these groups are framing the change they want to see, that is their demands to governments. Not all demands and actions have the same potential to create the changes needed to mitigate climate change. Used in public health and health promotion, the systems science Intervention Level Framework (ILF) is a tool that can help analyse to what extent different demands have the leverage to create change in a system. We use the ILF to analyse 131 demands from 35 different climate-related advocacy groups in Australia. Results show demands are more focused on lower system leverage points, such as stopping particular projects, rather than on more impactful leverage points, such as the governance structures that determine climate-related policy and decision-making mechanisms. Further, the results highlight the lack of attention on public health related topics of transport and food systems. This paper shows how a systems science framework used in health promotion, the ILF, could enable climate advocacy groups to more effectively target demands to achieve more impactful outcomes from governments, corporations and the public.

What Can Public Health Administration Learn from the Decision-Making Processes during COVID-19?

Human decision-making is prone to biases and the use of heuristics that can result in making logical errors and erroneous causal connections, which were evident during COVID-19 policy developments and potentially contributed to the inadequate and costly responses to COVID-19. There are decision-making frameworks and tools that can improve organisational decision-making. It is currently unknown as to what extent public health administrations have been using these structured organisational-level decision-making processes to counter decision-making biases. Current reviews of COVID-19 policies could examine not just the content of policy decisions but also how decisions were made. We recommend that understanding whether these decision-making processes have been used in public health administration is key to policy reform and learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a research and practice gap that has significant implications for a wide range of public health policy areas and potentially could have made a profound difference in COVID-19-related policy responses.