Evidence database

Evidence of the effectiveness of anticipation is important for several reasons. Firstly, the selection and design of effective early actions is pivotal for implementation success. Secondly, evidence enables advocates and practitioners to demonstrate the impact of this emerging approach to humanitarian action. Thirdly, sharing and learning from each other’s successes and failures will help the anticipation community maximize its impact. 

This database complements the Early Action Database by collating evidence on the effectiveness of (potential) early actions. Its primary purpose is to help practitioners evaluate and compare early actions based on existing data. As anticipation is a relatively new concept, evidence from anticipatory humanitarian programs may be lacking for many actions. For this reason, to the extent possible, the database also includes evidence from Development, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Humanitarian Response interventions/actions that could be adapted to the anticipatory context (see the implementation context filter). This way, practitioners can still learn from what is known about specific interventions in non-anticipatory contexts.

While the database is primarily meant to inform the selection and design of anticipatory actions, as the evidence specific to anticipation grows, it may also help advocates build arguments for early action, and help Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning experts more easily identify and share studies relevant to their work.

Growing this database is a community effort.  If you know of a study/evidence not reflected in the database, please contact  Arielle Tozier de la Poterie.

After you use the database, please submit your feedback here to help us improve the database’s design and utility in the future.

Export database here
Close Filter
Close Filter
Close Filter
Close Filter
Close Filter
Close Filter
Close Filter
Close Filter
Close Filter

Results

54
sort by
Study Title

Acting Before Disaster Strikes: The impacts of anticipatory cash transfers on climate resilience in Northeast Nigeria (2022)

  • Country / Region

    Africa, Nigeria

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Cash, Early warning messages

  • Action purpose(s)

    Wellbeing / reduce phsychosocial stress, Early action/preparation, Food security/nutrition, Meet basic needs, Resilience

  • Sector(s)

    NUTRITION, FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS, EARLY WARNING

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    "1. Anticipatory cash payment has statistically significant impacts on improving households reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) and livelihood coping strategy index (LCSI). Households who received cash payments before the peak of flooding are less likely to employ negative coping strategies in response to floods. However, in terms of the short-term food consumption impacts, we do not see significant differences between pre- and post-shock cash households.

    2. Of the four livelihood diversification indicators considered in the study, we found that anticipatory cash payments have a statistically significant impact on household’s labor re-allocation including migration. We do not find evidence on the impacts of anticipatory cash on crop diversification, mixed crop-live- stock diversification, and non-farm business activities.

    3. Anticipatory cash payments have significant impacts on the number of pre-emptive actions taken by households in anticipation of floods, but no significant impacts on the number of post-shock actions.

    4. Anticipatory cash transfers had positive and statistically significant impacts on productive investments (agricultural assets and productive livestock). Productive investments could enhance a household’s future income generating capacity and reduce their vulnerability to future shocks, thus improving long- term resilience capacity.

    5. Finally, our results do not show significant differences in measures of subjective wellbeing between the pre- and post-cash households. Similarly, our heterogeneity analyses show that the impacts of anticipatory cash on various outcome measures are not sensitive to household wealth status, which may imply that households in the study communities are generally economically poor." (p. 25)

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    1450

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    RCT

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Other non-peer reviewed publication

  • Year of publication

    2023

  • Additional details

    The research team took a baseline of 1450 households in April and May of 2022, before the flooding season. When pre-determined trigger thresholds were met on July 27th 2022 (e.g., when river water volume exceeded a certain amount and the probability of a flood was high) IRC delivered N195,000 to 725 households across six communities (the treatment group). A control group of 725 received an equal cash payments after the flood hit (November 7th). Endline data was collected from the same households in December 2022.

  • Visit project page
Study Title

Anticipatory cash transfers in climate disaster response (2020)

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce loss of income/livelihood/livestock

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    Intervention households experienced less loss of or damage to their assets relative to the control group. Intervention households were 8% less likely to lose small livestock and 5% less likely to lose poultry during and after the flooding.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    23434 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Other non-peer reviewed publication

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    Improvement over Gros et al 2019 and forthcoming because have larger sampling size and balanced comparison groups. Households received one payment of approximately USD 53. Overall, cash transfers had a small, positive, statistically significant impact on intervention households. On average the cash transfers benefited poorer people and people living on char land more than less vulnerable households.

  • Read the study
Study Title

Anticipatory cash transfers in climate disaster response (2020)

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce number/value of new loans

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    On average, households receiving the cash transfer borrowed $7 less and at lower interest rates than control households in the two months after the onset of flooding.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    23434 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Other non-peer reviewed publication

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    Improvement over Gros et al 2019 and forthcoming because have larger sampling size and balanced comparison groups. Households received one payment of approximately USD 53. Overall, cash transfers had a small, positive, statistically significant impact on intervention households. On average the cash transfers benefited poorer people and people living on char land more than less vulnerable households.

  • Read the study
Study Title

Anticipatory cash transfers in climate disaster response (2020)

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Food security/nutrition

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    91 percent households reported spending the cash on food and/or water. Children in households that received anticipatory cash were 3 percent morel likely to have consumed 3 or more meals in the day before data collection (three months after the intervention). Adult food consumption scores were also higher. Evidence suggests that those that received cash earlier had higher adult food consumption scores.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    23434 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Other non-peer reviewed publication

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    Improvement over Gros et al 2019 and forthcoming because have larger sampling size and balanced comparison groups. Households received one payment of approximately USD 53. Overall, cash transfers had a small, positive, statistically significant impact on intervention households. On average the cash transfers benefited poorer people and people living on char land more than less vulnerable households.

  • Read the study
Study Title

Anticipatory cash transfers in climate disaster response (2020)

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Evacuation

  • Sector(s)

    EARLY WARNING

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    Intervention households were not more likely to prepare for the flood than control households, but households that received the cash transfer were 12% more likely to evacuate household members and 17% more likely to evacuate their livestock.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    23434 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Other non-peer reviewed publication

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    Improvement over Gros et al 2019 and forthcoming because have larger sampling size and balanced comparison groups. Households received one payment of approximately USD 53. Overall, cash transfers had a small, positive, statistically significant impact on intervention households. On average the cash transfers benefited poorer people and people living on char land more than less vulnerable households.

  • Read the study
Study Title

Anticipatory cash transfers in climate disaster response (2020)

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Mental health/well-being

  • Sector(s)

    HEALTH

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    Beneficiary households scored an average of 12.5 percent higher on Cantril's ladder of life satisfaction (though both treatment and control groups were quite low).

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    23434 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Other non-peer reviewed publication

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    Improvement over Gros et al 2019 and forthcoming because have larger sampling size and balanced comparison groups. Households received one payment of approximately USD 53. Overall, cash transfers had a small, positive, statistically significant impact on intervention households. On average the cash transfers benefited poorer people and people living on char land more than less vulnerable households.

  • Read the study
Study Title

Does Food Assistance Improve Recipients' Dietary Diversity and Food Quality in Mozambique

  • Country / Region

    Africa, Mozambique

  • Hazard

    N/A

  • Early action

    Food-for-work, Cash-for-work

  • Action purpose(s)

    Food security/nutrition

  • Sector(s)

    HEALTH, NUTRITION

  • Implementation context

    Development/DRR programs

  • What the evidence says

    Both food and cash transfers improved food consumption scores compared to the control group. However, those receiving cash ate more nutrient-rich foods and those receiving food had greater diversity overall. Both interventions groups had diets that were considered nutritionally adequate. 

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Principal component analysis

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Peer reviewed journal

  • Year of publication

    2017

  • Additional details

    Study used WFP outcome survey data (n=456) and government National Food Security data. 

  • Read the study
Study Title

Effectiveness of insecticide-treated and untreated nets to prevent malaria in India

  • Country / Region

    Asia, India

  • Hazard

    N/A

  • Early action

    Insecticide-treated bed nets

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce vector borne diseases

  • Sector(s)

    WASH, HEALTH

  • Implementation context

    Development/DRR programs

  • What the evidence says

    Use of untreated and treated bed nets reduces the incidence of malaria in the Indian context (compared to using no net). This effect may be more pronounced in India than in other countries. 

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Randomized controlled trials

  • Study type

    Systematic review

  • Publication Type

    Peer reviewed journal

  • Year of publication

    2015

  • Additional details

    The review examined 16 studies of use of bed nets in India. 

  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of Early Action Mechanisms in Peru Regarding Preparedness for El Niño (2017)

  • Country / Region

    Peru, Latin America & the Caribbean

  • Hazard

    Flood, El Niño, Extreme rainfall

  • Early action

    Reinforce housing, schools, or other infrastructure

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce damage to houses and infrastructure

  • Sector(s)

    SHELTER/INFRASTRUCTURE

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    Results suggest that the distribution and use of housing protection kits to reinforce roofs and walls against heavy rains results in less damage to the houses.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    240 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Peer reviewed journal

  • Year of publication

    2019

  • Additional details

    Kits were delivered for 2015-2016 El Niño but not used until 2017 event. Sample size was 113 households. Used propensity matching to identify control households. 

  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Cyclone Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation for Cyclone “AMPHAN”

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Cyclone

  • Early action

    Food, Water, Hygiene kits, Evacuation (livestock and/or assets), Sanitization, Improving conditions at evacuation sites

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce agricultural/aquaculture impacts

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    The anticipatory interventions were effective in reducing impacts on agricultural activities. 29 percent of total respondents owned or rented land for agricultural or aquacultural cultivation. Of these, FbA beneficiaries reported losing an average of 52 decimals of cultivated crops/aquaculture compared to average losses of 109 decimals in the comparison group (-57 decimals). Cyclone-induced losses to aquaculture occur when storm surges increase the salinity of water above shrimp’s tolerance. Given that average Bangladeshi farmer cultivates only 74 decimals (0.74 acres or 0.3ha), the losses of 109 decimals reported by the highly vulnerable comparison group are likely overreported (Asian NGO Coalition, 2012). Finally 14 percent of FbA beneficiaries reported having to replant their crops as a consequence of the cyclone, eight percent more than respondents in the comparison group (6%).

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for Amphan Cyclone was activated on 18th May 2020.  BDRCS reached 192 shelters in 64 Unions under 10 Districts with Early Actions before the landfall. Around 36,500 beneficiaries were reached and provided dry food, safe drinking water, masks, hand sanitizer, and soap to cope with hygiene security due to Covid-19 pandemic. Shelters were disinfected before the evacuation. Livestock were also evacuated to shelters.

    The cyclone occurred during a time when there was no rice on the paddies, therefore the reported agricultural losses are likey restricted to aquaculture (shrimp farming).

    The statisically significant benefits of the FbA intervention were:

    1. Helping households evacuate household members (RQ1);
    2. Reducing the overall impacts of the cyclone on the health conditions of household members (RQ2);
    3. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on livestock and agricultural activities (RQ5);
    4. Improving the overall shelter experience of the household, with less problems experienced and more services received (RQ7); and 
    5. Reducing the selling of household assets as a coping strategy for financial and economic constraints after the cyclone event (RQ8).

    No evidence was found for the following impacts:

    1. Improving the general psychological conditions after the cyclone event (RQ3);
    2. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on household assets (RQ4);
    3. Reducing the borrowing of money and the selling of household assets as coping strategies after the cyclone event (RQ6); and
    4. Improving the resilience of the household in terms of resuming working activities (RQ9).
  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Cyclone Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation for Cyclone “AMPHAN”

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Cyclone

  • Early action

    Food, Water, Hygiene kits, Evacuation (livestock and/or assets), Sanitization, Improving conditions at evacuation sites

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce negative coping strategies, Reduce number/value of new loans, Prevent loss of assets

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    Only 4 percent of beneficiary households resorted to destitution sales of house assets (such as cooking stoves, radios, fridges, beds, furniture) to obtain cash to cope with cyclone impacts compared to 58 percent of households in the comparison group (a 54% reduction, statistically signficant to 99%). However, beneficiaries were more likely (24 percent of beneficiaries vs 2 percent of non-beneficiaries) to sell other assets, like jewelry or clothing. 
    There was no statisitcally significant difference between the number of households in each group taking out new loans or the value or interest rate of those loans. 

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for Amphan Cyclone was activated on 18th May 2020.  BDRCS reached 192 shelters in 64 Unions under 10 Districts with Early Actions before the landfall. Around 36,500 beneficiaries were reached and provided dry food, safe drinking water, masks, hand sanitizer, and soap to cope with hygiene security due to Covid-19 pandemic. Shelters were disinfected before the evacuation. Livestock were also evacuated to shelters.

    The statisically significant benefits of the FbA intervention were:

    1. Helping households evacuate household members (RQ1);
    2. Reducing the overall impacts of the cyclone on the health conditions of household members (RQ2);
    3. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on livestock and agricultural activities (RQ5);
    4. Improving the overall shelter experience of the household, with less problems experienced and more services received (RQ7); and 
    5. Reducing the selling of household assets as a coping strategy for financial and economic constraints after the cyclone event (RQ8).

    No evidence was found for the following impacts:

    1. Improving the general psychological conditions after the cyclone event (RQ3);
    2. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on household assets (RQ4);
    3. Reducing the borrowing of money and the selling of household assets as coping strategies after the cyclone event (RQ6); and
    4. Improving the resilience of the household in terms of resuming working activities (RQ9).
  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Cyclone Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation for Cyclone “AMPHAN”

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Cyclone

  • Early action

    Food, Water, Hygiene kits, Evacuation (livestock and/or assets), Sanitization, Improving conditions at evacuation sites

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce health impacts, Mental health/well-being

  • Sector(s)

    HEALTH

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    15% of FbA beneficiaries reported experiencing health problems and physical injuries (such as bruises and fractures) after and because of the cyclone comparted to 27% of non-beneficiary comparison households, a 12 percent reduction (statistically significant at the 90% confidence level). However, no differences between the two groups were observed for other health concerns such as coughing, skin rashes, and diarrhoea, or for mental health and psychological distress. 

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    36500 people

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for Amphan Cyclone was activated on 18th May 2020.  BDRCS reached 192 shelters in 64 Unions under 10 Districts with Early Actions before the landfall. Around 36,500 beneficiaries were reached and provided dry food, safe drinking water, masks, hand sanitizer, and soap to cope with hygiene security due to Covid-19 pandemic. Shelters were disinfected before the evacuation. Livestock were also evacuated to shelters.

  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Cyclone Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation for Cyclone “AMPHAN”

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Cyclone

  • Early action

    Food, Water, Hygiene kits, Evacuation (livestock and/or assets), Sanitization, Improving conditions at evacuation sites

  • Action purpose(s)

    Improving conditions at evacuation sites

  • Sector(s)

    WASH, HEALTH

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    FbA beneficiaries reportedly received a higher level of assistance at the shelters, they had an overall better experience with less problems, and access to more services. The overall shelter experience was rated better by FbA beneficiaries, with an average score of 6.2 (out of 10) vs. 5.3 (out of 10) for the comparison group (+0.9 points).

    75% of FbA beneficiaries reported receiving water at the cyclone shelter (serviced with support from BDRCS), vs. only 58% from the comparison group who were at a shelter not supported by BDRCS (+17%);

    With regard to COVID-19 precautions, 62% of FbA beneficiaries said to have received masks and hand sanitizer at the shelter vs. 33% of comparison households (+29%). 41% of FbA beneficiaries received hygiene items such as soap vs. 29% of comparison households (+12%). 73% of FbA beneficiaries said that light was provided at the shelter vs. 60% of comparison households (+13%).

    There was no statistically significant difference in the food available to the two groups at the shelters.

    FbA beneficiaries reported fewer problems at the cyclone shelters: 29% of FbA beneficiaries said there was a lack of water at the shelter vs. 49% of comparison group households (-20%); A lack of sanitation facilities was experienced by 43% of FbA beneficiaries vs. 61% of the comparison group (-18%); 60% of FbA beneficiaries at shelters supported by BDRCS complained about the lack of space at the shelter (overcrowding) vs. 74% of the comparison group who experienced the same at shelters without BDRCS support (-14%) (Figure 11).

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    36500 people

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for Amphan Cyclone was activated on 18th May 2020.  BDRCS reached 192 shelters in 64 Unions under 10 Districts with Early Actions before the landfall. Around 36,500 beneficiaries were reached and provided dry food, safe drinking water, masks, hand sanitizer, and soap to cope with hygiene security due to Covid-19 pandemic. Shelters were disinfected before the evacuation. Livestock were also evacuated to shelters.

    The statisically significant benefits of the FbA intervention were:

    1. Helping households evacuate household members (RQ1);
    2. Reducing the overall impacts of the cyclone on the health conditions of household members (RQ2);
    3. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on livestock and agricultural activities (RQ5);
    4. Improving the overall shelter experience of the household, with less problems experienced and more services received (RQ7); and 
    5. Reducing the selling of household assets as a coping strategy for financial and economic constraints after the cyclone event (RQ8).

    No evidence was found for the following impacts:

    1. Improving the general psychological conditions after the cyclone event (RQ3);
    2. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on household assets (RQ4);
    3. Reducing the borrowing of money and the selling of household assets as coping strategies after the cyclone event (RQ6); and
    4. Improving the resilience of the household in terms of resuming working activities (RQ9).
  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Cyclone Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation for Cyclone “AMPHAN”

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Cyclone

  • Early action

    Food, Water, Hygiene kits, Evacuation (livestock and/or assets), Sanitization, Improving conditions at evacuation sites

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce loss of income/livelihood/livestock

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    Evacuation of animals was lower among FbA beneficiaries (42%) than in the comparison group (53%) with a difference of -11%. Other variables measuring actions taken by households after the warning were not statistically different between the two groups.

    Although the provision of shelter space for livestock is included in the EAP, only 30% of FbA beneficiaries said there was a place for their livestock at the shelter vs. 44% of the comparison group (-14%). This was likely due to the fact that BDRCS was not able to select the shelters at which to provide services; therefore in many cases the shelters were far away and difficult to reach, thus livestock shelters could not be built there.
    There was no difference in the number of days that intervention and non-intervention households were unable to work after the cyclone. Both groups reported the inability to work for an average of 40 days as a result of the cyclone.

    Overall, 29 percent of beneficiaries reported experiencing the death or loss of at least one animal because of the cyclone, compared to 63% of respondents from the comparison group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of loss of “chickens and pigeons,” “cows and calves,”or “sheeps and goats.” However, only 29 percent of the FbA beneficiaries reported losing ducks compared to 46% percent of non-beneficiaries.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    36500 people

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for Amphan Cyclone was activated on 18th May 2020.  BDRCS reached 192 shelters in 64 Unions under 10 Districts with Early Actions before the landfall. Around 36,500 beneficiaries were reached and provided dry food, safe drinking water, masks, hand sanitizer, and soap to cope with hygiene security due to Covid-19 pandemic. Shelters were disinfected before the evacuation. Livestock were also evacuated to shelters.

    The statisically significant benefits of the FbA intervention were:

    1. Helping households evacuate household members (RQ1);
    2. Reducing the overall impacts of the cyclone on the health conditions of household members (RQ2);
    3. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on livestock and agricultural activities (RQ5);
    4. Improving the overall shelter experience of the household, with less problems experienced and more services received (RQ7); and 
    5. Reducing the selling of household assets as a coping strategy for financial and economic constraints after the cyclone event (RQ8).

    No evidence was found for the following impacts:

    1. Improving the general psychological conditions after the cyclone event (RQ3);
    2. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on household assets (RQ4);
    3. Reducing the borrowing of money and the selling of household assets as coping strategies after the cyclone event (RQ6); and
    4. Improving the resilience of the household in terms of resuming working activities (RQ9).
  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Cyclone Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation for Cyclone “AMPHAN”

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Cyclone

  • Early action

    Food, Water, Hygiene kits, Evacuation (livestock and/or assets), Sanitization, Improving conditions at evacuation sites

  • Action purpose(s)

    Save lives

  • Sector(s)

    HEALTH, EARLY WARNING

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    100% of FbA beneficiaries reported that they evacuated to a cyclone shelter, whereas 97% of comparison households declared the same (+3%). Therefore FbA assistance was effective in ensuring that everyone evacuates (whereas without FbA, 3% of households might not have been evacuated).

    Of those who received an early warning, 33% of FbA beneficiaries said they were warned by BDRCS vs. only 13% of the comparison group were warned by BDRCS (+20%); 81% of FbA beneficiaries were warned by CPP1 vs. 92% of the comparison group (-11%); and 46% of FbA beneficiaries vs. 32% of the comparison group were warned by mobile phone (+14%).

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    36500 people

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for Amphan Cyclone was activated on 18th May 2020.  BDRCS reached 192 shelters in 64 Unions under 10 Districts with Early Actions before the landfall. Around 36,500 beneficiaries were reached and provided dry food, safe drinking water, masks, hand sanitizer, and soap to cope with hygiene security due to Covid-19 pandemic. Shelters were disinfected before the evacuation. Livestock were also evacuated to shelters.

    The statisically significant benefits of the FbA intervention were:

    1. Helping households evacuate household members (RQ1);
    2. Reducing the overall impacts of the cyclone on the health conditions of household members (RQ2);
    3. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on livestock and agricultural activities (RQ5);
    4. Improving the overall shelter experience of the household, with less problems experienced and more services received (RQ7); and 
    5. Reducing the selling of household assets as a coping strategy for financial and economic constraints after the cyclone event (RQ8).

    No evidence was found for the following impacts:

    1. Improving the general psychological conditions after the cyclone event (RQ3);
    2. Reducing the impacts of the cyclone on household assets (RQ4);
    3. Reducing the borrowing of money and the selling of household assets as coping strategies after the cyclone event (RQ6); and
    4. Improving the resilience of the household in terms of resuming working activities (RQ9).
  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Flood Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Food security/nutrition

  • Sector(s)

    NUTRITION, FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    The intervention had no statistically significant impact on food-based coping strategies. 

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    3789 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for floods was activated on 25 June 2020. BDRCS reached 3,789 households in 10 Unions under 3 districts with an unconditional multi-purpose cash grant of 4,500 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) (about 53$). A vulnerability score for each household was computed using five criteria: quality of housing structure; level of inundation during previous floods; number of dependents in the family (children, elderly, or disabled); family structure (female-headed, widowed, divorced etc.); livelihood strategies.

    90% of beneficiaries reported spending the cash grants on food, 34% on livestock, 29% on health and 24% on evacuation. 

    Discussions are ongoing about how much cash is enough to contribute to the desired outcomes overall. 

  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Flood Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce negative coping strategies, Prevent loss of assets

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

     44% of FbF beneficiaries said they had to borrow money to cope with the impacts of the flood vs. 56% of the comparison group (-12%). However, for those that did borrow, there was no statistically significant difference in the quantity of money borrowed or the interest rate. 

    None of the FbF beneficiaries had to sell household assets (such as beds, furniture, cooking stoves, kitchen items, etc.), whereas 12% of the comparison group did so to cope with difficult economic conditions after the flood (-12%). There were not statistically significant differences in the two groups when it came to selling other assets (e.g. land properties, livestock, working equipment or personal items).

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    3789 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for floods was activated on 25 June 2020. BDRCS reached 3,789 households in 10 Unions under 3 districts with an unconditional multi-purpose cash grant of 4,500 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) (about 53$). A vulnerability score for each household was computed using five criteria: quality of housing structure; level of inundation during previous floods; number of dependents in the family (children, elderly, or disabled); family structure (female-headed, widowed, divorced etc.); livelihood strategies.

    90% of beneficiaries reported spending the cash grants on food, 34% on livestock, 29% on health and 24% on evacuation. 

    Discussions are ongoing about how much cash is enough to contribute to the desired outcomes overall. 

  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Flood Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Reduce health impacts

  • Sector(s)

    HEALTH

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    Fewer FbF beneficiaries reported experiencing health problems (such as coughing, skin rash) because of the flood (73% of FbF cash recipient’s vs 84% of comparison households, an 11% reduction).

    There was no difference in the level of stress experienced by beneficiary and non-beneficiary households.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    3789 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for floods was activated on 25 June 2020. BDRCS reached 3,789 households in 10 Unions under 3 districts with an unconditional multi-purpose cash grant of 4,500 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) (about 53$). A vulnerability score for each household was computed using five criteria: quality of housing structure; level of inundation during previous floods; number of dependents in the family (children, elderly, or disabled); family structure (female-headed, widowed, divorced etc.); livelihood strategies.

    90% of beneficiaries reported spending the cash grants on food, 34% on livestock, 29% on health and 24% on evacuation. 

    Discussions are ongoing about how much cash is enough to contribute to the desired outcomes overall. 

  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Flood Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Prevent loss of income/livelihood/livestock, Prevent loss of assets

  • Sector(s)

    FOOD SECURITY & LIVELIHOODS

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    51% of FbF beneficiaries indicated that some of their working equipment (such as tools, fishing equipment, pumps, etc.) was damaged to some degree or lost vs. 72% of comparison households (-21%). Differences for other kinds of assets were not statistically significant. 

    The FbF cash transfer helped beneficiaries reduce livestock losses. Out of 42% of households who said they owned or look after cows or calves, FbF beneficiaries indicated losing 9% vs. the comparison group, which reported losing 22% of them (-13%). The FbF beneficiary group reported that 50% of their chickens and pigeons died because of the flood event. Comparison households reported losing 60% of their chickens and pigeons (-10%). Differences in mortality for other animals (sheep, goats, and ducks) and for agricultural crops  were not statistically significant.

    97% of FbF beneficiaries reported that they, or an adult member of their household, was unable to work for a period of time because of the flood, compared to 86% of comparison households without FbF assistance at the shelter (+11%). There was no difference in the average number of days people were unable to work after the event between the two groups (approximately 46 days for each group). This result is unexpected, but it might depend on external factors not linked to the intervention itself. There are no other significant differences on the averages of the two groups related to other aspects of damages, such as other health problems, damages to vehicles or to houses.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    3789 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for floods was activated on 25 June 2020. BDRCS reached 3,789 households in 10 Unions under 3 districts with an unconditional multi-purpose cash grant of 4,500 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) (about 53$). A vulnerability score for each household was computed using five criteria: quality of housing structure; level of inundation during previous floods; number of dependents in the family (children, elderly, or disabled); family structure (female-headed, widowed, divorced etc.); livelihood strategies.

    90% of beneficiaries reported spending the cash grants on food, 34% on livestock, 29% on health and 24% on evacuation. 

    Discussions are ongoing about how much cash is enough to contribute to the desired outcomes overall. 

  • Read the study
Study Title

Evaluation of the Flood Early Action Protocol (EAP): Quantitative Impact Assessment of the 2020 EAP Activation

  • Country / Region

    Bangladesh, Asia

  • Hazard

    Flood

  • Early action

    Unconditional cash

  • Action purpose(s)

    Save lives

  • Sector(s)

    HEALTH, EARLY WARNING

  • Implementation context

    Anticipatory Action

  • What the evidence says

    The FbF intervention appears to have been effective in enabling vulnerable households to evacuate the flood area where needed: 27% of FbF beneficiaries reported that they evacuated adults after receiving an early warning, vs 11% (+16%) of respondents among the comparison group.

  • Number of direct beneficiaries

    3789 households

  • Research approach

    Quantitative

  • Research methods

    Quasi-experimental
    Propensity score matching

  • Study type

    Impact assessment

  • Publication Type

    Monitoring report

  • Year of publication

    2021

  • Additional details

    The EAP for floods was activated on 25 June 2020. BDRCS reached 3,789 households in 10 Unions under 3 districts with an unconditional multi-purpose cash grant of 4,500 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) (about 53$). A vulnerability score for each household was computed using five criteria: quality of housing structure; level of inundation during previous floods; number of dependents in the family (children, elderly, or disabled); family structure (female-headed, widowed, divorced etc.); livelihood strategies.

    90% of beneficiaries reported spending the cash grants on food, 34% on livestock, 29% on health and 24% on evacuation. 

  • Read study

The evidence database is still under development and is subject to change based on feedback and input from our partners.

Do you have a question?

Growing this database is a community effort. If you know of a study/evidence not reflected in the database, please feel free to contact me.

Arielle Tozier de la Poterie

Global advisor Early Action and Research

German Red Cross

Raise your Question

 

Teaser image by Musfarayani/IFRC