Adam Douglas Henry

Interests

No activities entered.

Courses

Scholarly Contributions

Chapters

• Henry, A., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. (2022). Advocacy Coalition Framework: Advice on Applications and Methods. In Methods of the Policy Process. doi:10.4324/9781003269083-5
  More info

  The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a widely -applied theoretical framework to explain the dynamics of the policy process and major policy change. This chapter provides advice on how scholars may apply the ACF framework and adequately deal with methodological challenges that often arise in the applications of this framework. The challenges are considered in the context of cross-cutting concepts, including policy subsystems, policy actors, and belief systems, as well as three meta-theoretical concepts that underlie the ACF: coalitions, policy change, and learning. While there is no single approach to apply the ACF in any context, this chapter reviews the various dominant approaches used in operationalization and measurement of major theoretical concepts, including document analysis, expert interviews, and survey.
• Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C., Ingold, K., & Henry, A. (2020). Comparing policy processes: insights and lessons from the Advocacy Coalition Framework research program. In Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Comparative Policy Analysis. doi:10.4337/9781788111195.00011
  More info

  The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) represents one of the most influential and widely used frameworks of the policy process. This chapter introduces the concepts and assumptions of the ACF and describes how the framework can support comparative public policy research across countries and contexts. The chapter depicts the ACF as a research programme which provides a basis for continuous implicit comparison based on common concepts and hypotheses as well as explicit comparison through systematic within-case and across case-comparison. These comparative efforts are targeted at the core areas of theoretical emphases within the ACF, including advocacy coalitions, policy-oriented learning, and policy change. Based on a review of previous applications of the ACF from around the world, the chapter discusses areas of progress related to the comparative research agenda within the ACF and identifies issues and questions where more work is needed to advance this research agenda further. Several aspects of the ACF have been important in supporting comparative perspectives of the policy process, including descriptions of the nature and evolution of policy subsystems, conceptual development to account for similarities and differences in the attributes of policy subsystems, and testing of hypotheses about coalitions, learning, and policy change. The chapter concludes by outlining five suggestions for further advancing comparative policy process research within the ACF: thinking about concrete subsets of cases, maintaining conceptual consistency, sharing of best practices for overcoming barriers to comparison across cases, identifying key attributes of political systems shaping policy subsystems, and taking inspiration from other fields.
• Henry, A. D. (2017). Network Segregation and Policy Learning. In Oxford Handbook of Political Networks.
  More info

  This manuscript is forthcoming as a chapter in the University of Oxford Press Handbook of Political Networks. I am unsure when the book itself will come out, but hopefully some time in 2017.
• Henry, A. D., & Brugger, H. (2016). Agent‐Based Explorations of Environmental Consumption in Segregated Networks. In Social Systems Engineering: The Design of Complexity(pp 199-214). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118974414
  More info

  This is a theoretical agent-based model developed with Heike Brugger, a PhD student from the University of Konstanz who was a visiting scholar in SGPP in AY2014-15. This manuscript was an open submission to an edited volume published by John Wiley Publishers. After an initial proposal submission, a full manuscript was invited.
• Henry, A., & Brugger, H. (2017). Agent-based explorations of environmental consumption in segregated networks. In Social Systems Engineering: The Design of Complexity. doi:10.1002/9781118974414.ch10
  More info

  This chapter presents an agent-based model of household investments in high-cost, environmentally friendly technologies. Our model considers how the dynamics of adoption over time are sensitive to the strategies of firms that market these technologies. Our model shows that when firms systematically target potential adopters with a high baseline propensity for adoption, a trade-off is created between two evaluative criteria of interest to policymakers: the overall speed of technology adoption and the equity of access to these technologies between rich and poor communities. This model provides a tool for planners to diagnose the potential equity concerns that may arise from strategies that firms use to maximize their short-term interests. Models such as this enable us to evaluate strategies to simultaneously promote widespread adoption as well as equitable access to technologies that promote human well-being and the sustainable use of natural resources.
• Lubell, M., Henry, A., & McCoy, M. (2009). Institutional collective action in an ecology of games. In Self-Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511642319.012
  More info

  The main goal of this volume is to explain how governance authorities in a particular policy arena overcome fragmentation and solve vertical and horizontal collective action problems. Our chapter addresses this goal in two ways: first, we apply Norton Long’s (1958) analysis of the ecology of games played in territorially defined metropolitan areas to regional governance, and second, we analyze the relationships between collaboration networks, trust, and political influence in the context of regional land-use and transportation policy. The central argument of the ecology of games framework is that local political outcomes emerge from actors pursuing their self-interest in multiple, interdependent, and rule-structured games. The resulting decisions lead to the type of fragmentation and decision externalities discussed throughout this volume. Collaborative partnerships and networks are considered potential self-organizing mechanisms for overcoming these dilemmas, and our empirical study explicitly examines the resulting patterns of cooperation, trust, and political influence. Our use of the ecology of games metaphor is partly a reaction to the burgeoning social science literature that examines the dynamics and effectiveness of collaborative processes as new institutions for political decision making. This literature itself has emerged in response to (and perhaps also partly caused) the widespread appearance of collaborative policy and its aliases in nearly every policy subsystem, especially environmental policy (O'Leary, Gerard, and Bingham 2006). These collaborative institutions are designed to alleviate many symptoms of institutional collective action (ICA) problems discussed in this book.

Journals/Publications

• Henry, A. D., & Brugger, H. (2015). The Equity of Incentives: Agent-Based Explorations of How Residential Solar Adoption Incentives Influence Energy Choices in Segregated Networks. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Fall Research Conference.
  More info

  Paper presented at 2015 APPAM meeting.
• Henry, A. D., Dietz, T., & Sweeney, R. (2020). Coevolution of Networks and Beliefs in U.S. Environmental Risk Policy. Policy Studies Journal.
• Berger, L., Henry, A., & Pivo, G. (2023). Orienteering the landscape of urban water sustainability indicators. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 17. doi:10.1016/j.indic.2022.100207
  More info

  Indicator frameworks for urban water sustainability are very diverse, with tools designed for different practical use cases and employing different assessment approaches. This creates a complex landscape that scholars and practitioners must successfully “orienteer” so that they may effectively apply the literature to develop theory and/or manage practical problems of sustainability. Based on a systematic analysis of indicator frameworks for urban water sustainability, this paper presents an overview of framework designs and current design trends. Five key framework design decisions and respective options are outlined, and the patterns in and implications of their use are discussed. While the decisions were identified based on material for assessing urban water sustainability, the categories of decisions and options are relevant to environmental sustainability more broadly. The paper is aimed at framework users looking for an overview of different framework designs and their benefits and drawbacks and framework designers interested in common options, current trends, and difficulties.
• He, S., Shrestha, P., Henry, A., & Legido-Quigley, H. (2023). Leveraging collaborative research networks against antimicrobial resistance in Asia. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1191036
  More info

  Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health security threat requiring research collaboration globally and regionally. Despite repeated calls for international research collaboration in Asia, literature analyzing the nature of collaborative AMR research in Asia has been sparse. This study aims to describe the characteristics of the AMR research network in Asia and investigate the factors influencing collaborative tie formation between organizations. Methods: We carried out a mixed-methods study by combining social network analysis (SNA) and in-depth interviews. SNA was first conducted on primary data to describe the characteristics of the AMR research network in Asia. Exponential random graph models (ERGMs) were then used to examine the influence of factors such as organization type, country affluence levels, regional proximity and One Health research on collaborative tie formation among organizations. In-depth interviews were conducted with network participants to provide contextual insights to the quantitative data. Results: The results reveal that the research network exhibits a core-periphery structure, where a minority of organizations have a significantly higher number of collaborations with others. The most influential organizations in the network are academic institutions from high-income countries within and outside Asia. The ERGM results demonstrate that organizations prefer to collaborate with others of similar organization types, country-based affluence levels and One Health domains of focus, but also with others across different World Health Organization regions. The qualitative analysis identified three main themes: the challenges that impede collaboration, the central role of academic institutions, and the nature of collaborations across One Health domains, giving rise to important empirical milestones in understanding AMR research in Asia. Conclusion: We thus recommend leveraging academic institutions as “integrators” to bridge differences, increasing funds channelled towards research capacity building to alleviate structural barriers to collaboration, streamlining collaborative mechanisms to overcome cumbersome administrative hurdles, and increasing efforts to establish trust between all organizations.
• Henry, A. (2023). Evaluating collaborative institutions by segregation and homophily in policy networks. Public Administration, 101(2). doi:10.1111/padm.12800
  More info

  Many policy systems are experimenting with collaborative institutions to manage complex policy problems in the face of persistent conflict and scientific uncertainty. Policy networks are central to the theory of why collaborative institutions are effective. While many policy systems naturally become segregated, fragmented, or siloed due to homophily, collaborative institutions are hypothesized to create more integrated systems of organizational collaboration. Collaborative institutions may, therefore, be evaluated by the extent to which they reduce the tendency toward homophily and increase the integration of policy networks. This paper evaluates three collaborative institutions in regional land-use planning and specifies a theory of the program from two prominent frameworks: Institutional Collective Action and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Results show that three forms of homophily are at work, and that in some cases, collaborative institutions successfully reduce the tendency toward network segregation.
• Berger, L., Henry, A. D., & Pivo, G. (2022). Orienteering the Landscape of Urban Water Sustainability Indicators. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 100207.
• Pivo, G., Henry, A., Berger, L., & Gomez-Fernandez, E. (2022). Organizational networks and sustainable urban water practices in US local governments. Water Policy, 24(2). doi:10.2166/wp.2021.191
  More info

  Organizational networks are regarded as key in policy innovation for sustainable development. They are thought to enhance innovation through access to first-hand experience, enhanced trust within a community, and exposure to role models and competitors. Despite theoretical pertinence, organizational networks have not been studied as much as other drivers of innovation, such as organizational capacity, leadership, and the socio-political environment. This empirical study explores how networks affect the implementation of Sustainable Urban Water Management Practices (SUWM) at the local level. Using data from 110 local governments in five US regions, we examine the relationship between social interaction and the implementation of SUWM, and how this relationship depends on the types of interaction partners. Our findings show that local governments with larger organizational networks implement more SUWM practices. Collaboration with non-governmental organizations, particularly water sector associations, is strongly associated with an increase in use of SUWM practices. Overall, our findings suggest that creating and maintaining a robust organizational network of other government agencies and non-governmental organizations, especially water sector associations, increases the chances that a local government will implement more SUWM practices.
• Berger, L., Henry, A. D., & Pivo, G. (2021). Role of City Collaboration Networks in the Acceleration and Attenuation of Integrated Water Management. Water Policy, 23(2), 222--238.
• Brugger, H., & Henry, A. D. (2021). Influence of Policy Discourse Networks on Local Energy Transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 39, 141--154.
• Gerlak, A. K., Elder, A., Thomure, T., Shipek, C., Zuniga-Teran, A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Gupta, N., Matsler, M., Berger, L., Henry, A. D., Yang, B. o., Murrieta-Saldivar, J., & Meixner, T. (2021). Green Infrastructure: Lessons in Governance and Collaboration From Tucson. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 63(3), 15--24.
• Henry, A. D. (2021). Evaluating Collaborative Institutions by Segregation and Homophily in Policy Networks. Public Administration, padm.12800.
• Henry, A., Dietz, T., & Sweeney, R. (2021). Coevolution of Networks and Beliefs in U.S. Environmental Risk Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 49(3). doi:10.1111/psj.12407
  More info

  Networks are an important part of the environmental policy process as they influence the ability of actors to synthesize information and learn to manage complex risks. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the dynamics of policy network formation lead to structures exhibiting belief-oriented segregation—that is, a high correspondence between shared beliefs and policy-relevant interactions. These structures may be produced through at least two pathways: belief homophily, where actors actively seek out connections with others sharing their belief system, and policy-oriented learning, where connected actors become more similar in their beliefs. The cross-sectional design of much policy research does not allow an examination of these potentially complementary forces that shape belief systems and networks. These dynamics are studied using data on policy beliefs and networking in the U.S. environmental risk policy subsystem across two time periods, 1985 and 2000 (N = 223). Results indicate strong homophily effects, but relatively weak learning effects in the evolution of this policy network. This study helps pave the way for additional research on the dynamics shaping policy networks and beliefs, and helps to clarify the differences between individual versus organizational contributions to policy network evolution.
• Pivo, G., Henry, A. D., Berger, L., & Gomez-Fernandez, E. L. (2021). Organizational Networks and Sustainable Urban Water Practices in US Local Governments. Water Policy, wp2021191.
• Bell, E. V., Bell, E. V., Henry, A. D., Henry, A. D., Pivo, G., & Pivo, G. (2020). Assessing Sectoral Heterogeneity and Leadership in Urban Water Management Networks. Water Policy.
• Berger, L., Henry, A. D., & Pivo, G. (2020). Integrated Water Management Recommendations in Practice: Coexistence of Old and New Ways in Arizona. Water Policy, 22(4), 501--518.
• Henry, A. D. (2020). Meeting the challenge of learning for sustainability through policy networks. Human Ecology Review, 26(2), 171-193.
• Pivo, G. E., Henry, A. D., & Berger, L. (2020). Essential elements at play in local environmental policy change: A guide for the perplexed. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, 240-249. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.023
• Weible, C., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2020). Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, 48(4). doi:10.1111/psj.12360
  More info

  The concept of “advocacy coalitions” is the bedrock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), one of the most established and successful approaches for understanding policy processes across the globe. This article revisits and sharpens the conceptual definition of advocacy coalitions. We summarize the lessons from its theoretical emphases under the ACF and specify its five attributes (policy actors, shared beliefs, coordination, resources, and stability). Through this specification, we identify the ideal coalition type and several coalition subtypes. We then clarify and make a distinction between how we think about coalitions as a concept and how we approach coalitions empirically. This article sharpens the lens for describing and explaining coalitions toward better observations, theorizing, and measurements. It ends with next steps for further deepening and broadening knowledge about advocacy coalitions.
• Brugger, H. I., & Henry, A. D. (2019). Equity of Incentives: Agent-Based Explorations of How Social Networks Influence the Efficacy of Programs to Promote Solar Adoption. Complexity, 2019, 1-15. doi:10.1155/2019/4349823
• Brugger, H., & Henry, A. (2019). Equity of Incentives: Agent-Based Explorations of How Social Networks Influence the Efficacy of Programs to Promote Solar Adoption. Complexity, 2019. doi:10.1155/2019/4349823
  More info

  Agent-based models are used to explore how social networks influence the effectiveness of governmental programs to promote the adoption of solar photovoltaics (solar PV) by residential households. This paper examines how a common characteristic of social networks, known as network segregation, can dampen the indirect benefits of solar incentive programs that arise from peer effects. Peer effects cause an agent to be more likely to adopt a technology if they are socially connected to other adopters. Due to network segregation, programs that target relatively affluent agents can generate rapid increases in overall adoption levels but at the cost of increasing disparities in access to solar technology between rich and poor communities. These dynamics are explored through theoretical agent-based models of solar adoption within hypothetical social systems. The effectiveness of three types of solar incentive programs, the feed-in tariff, leasing programs, and seeding programs, is explored. Even though these programs promote rapid adoption in the short term, results demonstrate that network segregation can create serious distributional justice problems in the long term for some programs. The distributional justice effects are particularly severe with the feed-in tariff. Overall, this paper provides an illustration of how agent-based models may be used to evaluate and experiment with policy interventions in a virtual space, which enhances the scientific basis of policymaking.
• Vollan, B., & Henry, A. D. (2019). Diversity in decision-making. Nature Climate Change.
• Weible, C., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2019). Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions. Policy Studies Journal. doi:10.1111/psj.12360
  More info

  My coauthors and I also served as guest editors for this special issue of the JCPA, and our contribution underwent double-blind peer review.
• Henry, A. D. (2018). Learning Sustainability Innovations. Nature Sustainability, 1(4), 164-165. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0053-9
• Brugger, H., & Henry, A. D. (2018). Equity of incentives: Agent-based explorations of how social networks influence the efficacy of programs to promote solar adoption. Complexity.
  More info

  Heike Brugger was a visiting scholar at SGPP and I served on her PhD committee at the University of Konstanz; this is a collaborative work outside of her dissertation.
• Henry, A. D., Christensen, A., Hofmann, R., Steimanis, I., & Vollan, B. (2017). Influence of sea level rise on discounting, resource use, and migration in small island communities: An agent-based modelling approach. Environmental Conservation.
  More info

  This paper is an interdisciplinary effort and part of an active research project that I collaborate on with Bjorn Vollan, concerning climate change adaptation in rural island communities in the Pacific Ocean.
• Bener, A., Caglayan, B., Henry, A. D., Lipzak, M., & Pralat, P. (2016). Empirical Models of Social Learning in a Large, Evolving Network. PLOS ONE.
  More info

  Authors are listed alphabetically; I am the corresponding author and took the lead on analysis and writing.
• Henry, A. D., Mitsche, D., & Pralat, P. (2016). Homophily, Contagion and the Decay of Segregation in Self-Organizing Networks. Network Science.
• Rai, V., & Henry, A. D. (2016). Agent-Based Modelling of Consumer Energy Choices. Nature Climate Change.
• Henry, A. D. (2014). The Challenge of Statistics Education in Master of Public Administration Programs: A Review of Two Popular Textbooks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 235-243.
  More info

  This was an invited book review in JPART. I used this review as an opportunity to discuss the types of skills that should be taught in MPA statistics programs based on the NAASPA universal required core competencies. I use this paper for teaching purposes in my MPA statistics class.
• Henry, A. D., & Vollan, B. (2014). Networks and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39(1), 583-610.
• Henry, A. D., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., & Weible, C. (2014). Policy Change in Comparative Contexts: Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework Outside of Western Europe and North America. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 16(4), 299-312.
  More info

  My coauthors and I also served as guest editors for this special issue of the JCPA, and our contribution underwent double-blind peer review.
• Gerber, E. R., Henry, A. D., & Lubell, M. (2013). Political Homophily and Collaboration in California Regional Planning Networks. American Journal of Political Science, 3(57).
• Henry, A. D., & Pralat, P. (2013). Discovery of Nodal Attributes through a Rank-Based Model of Network Structure. Internet Mathematics.
  More info

  This paper was an invited submission to Internet Mathematics, selected from papers previously published in the LNCS proceedings for the 8th Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web Graph.;Your Role: This paper was a shared collaborative effort, with my coauthor being primarily responsible for model setup and proofs of claims. We decided to list our names alphabetically, with Pralat as the corresponding author.;Full Citation: Adam Douglas Henry and Pawel Prałat (2013). "Discovery of Nodal Attributes through a Rank-Based Model of Network Structure." Internet Mathematics, 9(1): 33-57.;Other collaborative: Yes;Specify other collaborative: Collaborative with faculty outside of UA.Pawel Pralat: Ryerson University (Toronto, Canada);
• Henry, A. D., & Dietz, T. (2012). Understanding Environmental Cognition. Organization & Environment.
  More info

  Organization & Environment is a good journal in environmental social science. It's 2012 impact factor is 1.2, which is reasonably high for a social sciences journal.;Your Role: I was lead author and took primary responsibility for organizing and writing the paper.;Full Citation: Adam Douglas Henry and Thomas Dietz (2012). “Understanding Environmental Cognition.” Organization & Environment, 25(3): 238-258.;Other collaborative: Yes;Specify other collaborative: Collaborative with faculty outside of UA.Thomas Dietz: Michigan State University;
• Henry, A. D., & Vollan, B. (2012). Risk, Networks, and Ecological Explanations for the Emergence of Cooperation in Commons Governance. Rationality, Markets and Morals.
  More info

  Rationality, Markets and Morals is an online journal. While it is not a well known journal, the publication is of interest because it was an invited part of a symposium issue on the relations between economics and political science, co-edited by Elinor Ostrom. Björn Vollan and I met because of our shared interest in commons governance and sustainability.;Your Role: I was primarily responsible for the model development and pulling the writing together; my co-author was engaged in the analysis and also in the development of theory and applied lessons. I was lead author on this paper.;Full Citation: Adam Douglas Henry and Björn Vollan (2012). “Risk, Networks, and Ecological Explanations for the Emergence of Cooperation in Commons Governance” Rationality, Markets and Morals, 3: 130-147.;Electronic: Yes;Collaborative with faculty member at UA: Yes;
• Henry, A. D., Lubell, M., & McCoy, M. (2012). Survey-Based Measurement of Public Management and Policy Networks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
  More info

  JPAM is a leading journal in policy research.;Your Role: I was the lead author, responsible for most theory, all writing, and all analysis.;Full Citation: Adam Douglas Henry, Mark Lubell, and Michael McCoy (2012). “Survey-Based Measurement of Public Management and Policy Networks.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(2): 432-452.;Other collaborative: Yes;Specify other collaborative: Collaborative with faculty outside of UA.Mark Lubell: University of California, DavisMichael McCoy: University of California, Davis;
• Henry, A. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3). doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00413.x
  More info

  This article investigates the role of power and ideology in the endogenous formation of policy networks. According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), shared ideology (conceptualized as a system of policy-relevant beliefs and values) is the primary driver of collaboration within policy subsystems. On the other hand, Resource Dependency Theory suggests that power-seeking is an important rationale behind network structure, and that collaborative ties are formed primarily on the basis of perceived influence. Hypotheses are tested using a new method of egocentric network correlation, based on survey data of policy networks in five regional planning subsystems in California (N=506). Results suggest that ideology is an important force behind network cohesion: Not only do policy elites systematically avoid networking with ideologically dissimilar actors but collaborative ties are also systematically formed among actors with shared beliefs. Power-seeking does not operate on a network-wide scale but may drive network formation among coalitions of ideologically similar agents. © 2011 Policy Studies Organization.
• Henry, A., & Dietz, T. (2011). Information, networks, and the complexity of trust in commons governance. International Journal of the Commons, 5(2). doi:10.18352/ijc.312
  More info

  The publication of Elinor Ostrom's (1990) Governing the Commons fueled significant theoretical and empirical progress in the field of commons governance and collective action, most notably in the form of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. A central question within this literature is how trust is created, maintained, and potentially destroyed in the context of sustainability issues. While the commons literature has provided a deeper understanding of trust, most empirical work has been done in relatively simple settings that do not capture the complexity of many global, institutionally-complex dilemmas that we face today. This paper discusses how our understanding of trust in these more complex settings may be improved by considering how two broad categories of variables-belief systems and networks-influence trust. Copyright: content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
• Henry, A., Lubell, M., & McCoy, M. (2011). Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3). doi:10.1093/jopart/muq042
  More info

  This article uses exponential random graph models to investigate the roles of policy-relevant beliefs and social capital as drivers of network structure. The advocacy coalition framework argues that actors with similar policy beliefs are more likely to form coalitions, leading to policy subsystems fragmented into ideological groups. Social capital is defined as trust and norms of reciprocity, which helps cement cooperative relationships. Hypotheses are tested using survey data of policy elites involved in land-use and transportation planning in four regions of California. The findings suggest that coalitions of actors with similar belief systems are knit together by policy brokers seeking to build transitive social relationships. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved.
• Weible, C., Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A., & deLeon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3). doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x
• Lubell, M., Henry, A., & McCoy, M. (2010). Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2). doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00431.x
  More info

  This article seeks to improve our understanding of policy institutions and cooperation by adapting Long's (1958)analysis of the ecology of games to the context of collaborative land use and transportation planning in California. The traditional institutional rational choice analysis argues that collaborative institutions reduce the transaction costs of cooperation among multiple policy actors. The ecology of games framework extends IRC by emphasizing the consequences of multiple institutions and identifies several reasons why collaborative institutions may actually reduce the amount of cooperation in existing policy venues. Analyses of survey data from policy actors in five California regions demonstrate that higher levels of cooperation in collaborative institutions are associated with lower levels of cooperation in other land-use and transportation planning institutions. ©2010, Midwest Political Science Association.
• Henry, A. (2009). The challenge of learning for sustainability: A prolegomenon to theory. Human Ecology Review, 16(2).
  More info

  A core question of sustainability science asks how and why human agents learn to deal effectively with complex problems. "Learning" refers to the process by which actors assimilate information and update their cognitions and be-havior accordingly. Successful learning plays a vital role in our ability to achieve sustainability, and yet this process is poorly understood. Commonly-employed perspectives on learning tend to differentiate along two dimensions: the mechanism of learning (social versus individual learning) and the properties of the information being learned (empiri-cal versus normative knowledge). This yields four ideal types of learning that correspond to a central challenge of learning for sustainability. An integrated framework that transcends all of these perspectives is needed. Such a framework is pro-posed here, and includes four essential features: the structure of internal belief systems, the role of social networks in shap-ing knowledge, the role of knowledge in shaping networks, and the role of individual experience in the learning process. This framework is introduced as a prolegomenon (a preface to more detailed and exhaustive theoretical development) to facilitate the development of better theories and empirically- testable models of learning for sustainability. © Society for Human Ecology.
• Dietz, T., & Henry, A. (2008). Context and the commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(36). doi:10.1073/pnas.0806876105
• Henry, A. (2000). Public perceptions of global warming. Human Ecology Review, 7(1).
  More info

  This study explored public perceptions of global warming and the diverse meanings that lay people attribute to the phenomenon. The data came from six weeks of observation of visitors to a special Smithsonian Institution exhibit on global warming. The focus of the fieldwork was to document the meanings that people gave to global warming and related concepts during their tour of the exhibit by recording the comments, questions, and other narrative accounts of the visitors. Six weeks of field research yielded approximately 150 individual observations of visitor's interpretations of global warming, energy consumption, the greenhouse effect, nonrenewable resources, pollution, and ozone depletion. Three patterns emerged from the data: a gradient of knowledge with the attentive public falling between the average citizen and those who have become engaged, a catastrophism that represents a reverse availability heuristic, and a belief in the robustness of the biosphere. While each of these have some relation to previous work, it would be useful to see if survey-based or experimental studies confirm these tentative conclusions.

Proceedings Publications

• Henry, A. D., Pivo, G. E., Sanderford, A. R., & Gomez-Fernandez, E. L. (2017, October). Measuring Fragmentation of Water Governance in US Cities.. In American Collegiate Schools of Planning.
• Henry, A. (2011). Belief-oriented segregation in policy networks. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
  More info

  Many policy networks are characterized by belief-oriented segregation, where actors with shared belief systems are clustered together and few opportunities exist for communication across coalitions of like-minded stakeholders. This inhibits the ability of network actors to effectively learn about, and successfully manage, complex policy problems. Despite the importance of understanding why these structures emerge, the processes that generate belief polarization in networks are not well-studied. This paper derives a general agent-based model of network formation and belief change from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a prominent theory of the policy process that has been widely applied to the study of belief conflict in contentious policy systems. Simulation results suggest that the ACF assumption of biased information processing plays a critical role in the emergence of belief-oriented segregation in networks. This model provides a starting point for re-thinking the role of cognitive bias in social and policy learning, as well as the relationships between belief change and the evolving structure of policy networks. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Presentations

• Baldwin, E., Gornish, E., Lien, A., Henry, A. D., & Dosamantes, E. (2024). In the weeds: A review and synthesis on invasive species governance. Ostrom WorkshopDosamantes E*, Lien A, Henry A, Gornish ES, Baldwin E..
• Lien, A., Henry, A. D., Gornish, E., Dosamantes, E., & Baldwin, E. (2024). How do you govern a “common bad”? Preliminary design principles for managing invasive species. Ostrom Workshop.
• Jia, J., Lien, A., Henry, A. D., & Baldwin, E. (2021, June). Environmental contingency and network effectiveness. Public Management Research Conference.
• Bell, E., Henry, A. D., & Vollan, B. (2015, June). Working Outside of Collective Action: A Study of Strategic Relationship Formation. Political Networks (POLNET) Annual Conference. Portland, Oregon.
  More info

  Collaborative paper presented by Emily Bell at PolNet 2015.
• Henry, A. D., & Brugger, H. (2015, April). The Equity of Incentives: Agent-Based Explorations of How Residential Solar Adoption Incentives Influence Energy Choices in Segregated Networks. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Fall Research Conference.
  More info

  Paper presented at 2015 APPAM meeting.
• Henry, A. D., & Dietz, T. (2014, November). Policy Learning in an Environmental Risk Policy Network. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Fall Research Conference.
• Henry, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2014, November). Agent-Based Explanations of How Network Segregation Inhibits Social Learning for Sustainability. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Fall Research Conference.
  More info

  Paper presented at 2014 APPAM conference.
• Henry, A. D., & Vollan, B. (2012, 2012-04-01). Agent-based models of risk and cooperation in a dynamic policy network. Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  More info

  This paper is different from the one officially listed in the 2012 MPSA conference program; the paper listed in the program ended up being presented instead at the 2013 conference.I was lead author on this paper and delivered the presentation at MPSA; This conference paper was eventually published later in 2012.Vollan is a faculty member at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.Type of Presentation: Academic Conference.
• Henry, A. D., & solo, . (2012, 2012-12-01). Collaborative Institutions, Policy Networks, and Learning for Sustainable Regional Planning. Design and Dynamics of Institutions for Collective Action. Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  More info

  This conference was a special thematic conference of the International Association for the Study of Commons (IASC). It was organized around the work of ELinor Ostrom, who was meant to be a keynote speaker but had passed by the time of the conference.;Refereed: Yes;Interdisciplinary: Yes;Type of Presentation: Academic Conference/Workshop;