Building the evidence for anticipatory action: what we’ve learned – and what’s next

Anticipatory action has moved rapidly from concept to practice over the past decade (Kersting 2025). The expanding experience and evidence now available enable us to reflect on what has been learned, what works, and the evidence gaps that remain amid broader humanitarian reforms.

Two major reviews of this approach – by the World Food Programme (WFP 2025) and by Start Network (Kersting 2025) – assess the current evidence base and identify where knowledge gaps remain. Together, they confirm that anticipatory action has delivered measurable benefits for food security and livelihoods, while highlighting the need for more rigorous and harmonized approaches for evaluating its impact.

What the evidence tells us

Evidence presented in the two reports shows that acting before crises has measurable positive impacts.

Anticipatory action improves food security and reduces harmful coping strategies.

Both reports found consistent gains in household food access and reductions in the use of harmful coping strategies. Across WFP’s synthesis of 16 quantitative studies, anticipatory action consistently improved food consumption scores and reduced coping strategy indices; this means households were less likely to resort to harmful strategies during crises, such as pulling children out of school or selling productive assets (e.g., farming tools). Similarly, Start Network’s rapid evidence assessment found that anticipatory action improved people’s access to food and water, and reduced their reliance on negative coping strategies.

The evidence also suggests that anticipatory action interventions contributed positively to the preservation of livelihoods, with households receiving support being more likely to maintain their sources of income during crises.

Combining cash with other forms of anticipatory support improves outcomes.

WFP’s qualitative data show that cash transfers, when coupled with early warnings, improve household preparedness and decision-making. Furthermore, programmes that coupled early warnings with clear communication strategies saw higher rates of community action and preparedness. Meanwhile, Start Network's assessment found that combining cash assistance with in-kind support (e.g., livestock feed, agricultural inputs) was the most effective approach.

Anticipatory action reduces costs.

Anticipatory action interventions were generally more cost-effective than traditional, post-shock responses, often achieving returns on investment 1.5-2 times greater. This was due to the lower costs of procuring and distributing goods before a crisis, and avoided losses. However, it should be noted that significant variation in the approach used to calculate cost-effectiveness or returns on investment makes comparisons across interventions difficult.

Local ownership improves the effectiveness of anticipatory action.

Start Network’s review found that integrating local practice, policies, environmental conditions and social realities into anticipatory action initiatives leads to stronger outcomes. Programmes designed and implemented with local and community actors – such as community organizations, local authorities and traditional leaders – were more trusted, more timely, and better aligned with local realities.

Another recent study by WFP also explored communities’ experiences of anticipatory action. This recommended that practitioners continue incorporating people-centred approaches in the design, implementation and monitoring of programmes to ensure the needs and experiences of at-risk communities are addressed.

What do we still not know?

Despite this expanding evidence base, there are methodological approaches, quantitative indicators and thematic areas for anticipatory action that remain underexplored.

Metrics such as cost-effectiveness, health, resilience capacity and livelihood recovery remain inconsistently captured.

The WFP review identifies the need to better understand the financial return on investing in anticipatory action compared to traditional post-shock assistance. Meanwhile, the Start Network review found that methodologies to measure cost-effectiveness and financial return on investment were used inconsistently between studies. There is also a limited number of studies that focus on understanding how anticipatory action affects thematic areas such as psychosocial wellbeing, education, gender-specific needs, community relations, migration and displacement.

Further evidence is needed about contextual factors, and the types and timing of interventions.

The Start Network review found that there is currently little clarity regarding which factors affect anticipatory action across settings. Specifically, there is a need for studies that account for and examine the impact of contextual factors – such as local governance systems, community capacities, social structures and hazard profiles – on the success of anticipatory action interventions.

There is also a need for research examining the impacts of different forms of anticipatory support, their timing, and their use ahead of different hazards. WFP’s review identified a need to understand which assistance bundles are most effective for protecting the food security and livelihoods of different target groups against predictable drought.

More longitudinal data is needed, as well as evidence of cumulative impacts.

Although anticipatory action is a short-term measure to prevent or mitigate the impacts of a disaster, there are indications that it could contribute to sustained or cumulative developmental impacts in the medium to long term. Understanding its longer-term value is especially important during the humanitarian reset, as it could be a more cost-effective way to mitigate climate risks. However, the Start Network review found that few studies follow households beyond the immediate aftermath of a hazard – and none beyond six months. This makes it hard to assess when, why and how anticipatory action could deliver sustained impacts or support long-term resilience. 

Furthermore, it would be valuable to understand whether there are cumulative impacts, for example on community resilience or disaster preparedness, for communities that receive anticipatory action support over several years. Another key evidence gap, identified by WFP’s review, is an understanding of the extent to which anticipatory action can contribute to protecting development gains in target areas.

There remains a lack of disaggregated data to understand gender, age, disability and other vulnerability dynamics in anticipatory action outcomes.

The review by Start Network recommends more inclusive research to ensure that the benefits from anticipatory action are reaching the most at-risk groups.

Conclusions and looking ahead

The evidence base for anticipatory action is growing in breadth, and the ways in which this approach is evaluated is increasingly sophisticated. Together, these recent studies affirm that anticipatory action delivers significant benefits for at-risk populations.

To fully realize its potential, however, practitioners must harmonize their efforts, in order to address the remaining knowledge gaps and improve future programmes. By closing these gaps and coordinating learning, they can help to ensure that anticipatory action continues to deliver more effective, efficient, equitable and dignified humanitarian action.