About This Article
This article was written to explore the quantity and quality of evidence and evaluation in disasters and humanitarian crises and which barriers and solutions could be examined to improve the quality of evidence and evaluations in the setting of disasters or humanitarian crises.
This was originally submitted in 2019 as an essay by the author, Nathan Linton, whilst studying a Masters of International Development Practice at Monash University. Nathan has since worked in emergency services at the Country Fire Authority in Victoria, Australia and was the Head of Impact at Oaktree, Australia’s largest youth-led international aid & development organisation. You can find out more about Nathan here.
Overview
In recent years, there has been an increased push for professionalisation and evidence-based practice in the disaster and humanitarian sectors (The Sphere Project, 2018). The very nature of disasters and humanitarian crises often creates an environment in which it is difficult to conduct research. The current evidence base is extremely limited and is often dampened by a lack of research and an inability to generalise current findings (Challen et al 2012, p. 548).
The purpose of this article is to analyse the current status of the quantity and quality of evidence and evaluations in disasters and humanitarian crises and identify the barriers and solutions to improving this evidence base. This article will particularly focus on the health outcomes for WASH projects in humanitarian interventions as well as existing emergency management literature. It will then discuss the current barriers which prevent the improvement of the quality and quantity of evidence in disasters and humanitarian crises as well as identify some solutions and recommendations which are present in the literature.
Current Status of Evidence and Evaluations
The current status of evidence and evaluations in disasters and humanitarian settings in terms of quantity and quality is poor. Ager et al. (2014, p. 1290) observed that ‘despite the increasing professionalization and standardization of humanitarian work, there is a consensus that the evidence base for much current practice remains weak.’ This finding has been supported by a range of studies which have identified significant gaps in evidence based research from the field. In their research on the application of the Seed System Security Assessment (SSSA) in humanitarian settings, Goeldner-Byrne et al. (2013, p. 84) identified a large gap in the research explaining that ‘[a]lthough commonly-used tools exist for assessing acute humanitarian needs in some sectors, approaches for analysing entire systems are less well-established.’ Additionally, Ramesh et al. (2015, p. 13), who conducted a review of the literature regarding the effectiveness of WASH interventions on health outcomes in humanitarian crises, returned with only six relevant studies over a 33 year period. Assessments of disaster and emergency management literature produced similar results where ‘the validity and generalisability of the data is unclear’ (Challen et al. 2012, p. 548). It is evident from these studies that evidence and evaluations in the setting of disasters and humanitarian crises suffers from a lack of evidence-based research, particularly as it relates to an entire sector or system, and that this has occurred over a sustained period of time.
Barriers
It is clear from the academic literature and lack of available research that significant barriers exist which make the collection of evidence and completing evaluations in disaster and crises settings difficult. The very nature of disaster and humanitarian crises situations makes these settings less than ideal for conducting research and collecting evidence. As people are often in their most vulnerable state, addressing the immediate needs of a population becomes the primary concern, with tasks such and collecting evidence being heavily deprioritised (Ager et al. 2014 p. 1290). Furthermore, according to Ager et al. (2014, p. 1291), agencies involved in disaster response, which are generally specialists in this sector, typically ‘have little expertise in research and limited understanding of, or incentive to address, gaps in the evidence base…’ Ramesh et al. (2015, p. 16) note that in addition to the difficulty of conducting research in these settings, ‘…the limited number of studies and the methodological shortcomings of existing evidence prohibits definitive confirmation on effectiveness in these settings’. The lack of research makes it difficult for current and future studies to provide wide-ranging recommendations, therefore limiting the findings to narrow, case-specific studies. As a result of stretched resources and limited funding, research and evidence collection is rarely seen as a priority (Ager et al. 2014, p. 1290). This observation helps explain why evidence is heavily focused on wealthier regions such as North America, Australia, New Zealand and Europe (Challen et al. 2012, p. 547). These finding show that a significant number of barriers exist to improving the quality of evidence and evaluations in the setting of disasters and humanitarian crises.
Solutions
Despite there being a number of barriers to improving the quality of evidence and evaluations in the setting of disasters and humanitarian crises, a range of solutions have been identified to overcome some of these barriers. Ager et al. (2014, p. 1291) discuss that ‘given the growing scale and profile of humanitarian response, there is increasing interest in strengthening the evidence base… in such contexts’. Coupled with the increasing professionalisation and improvement of standards across the sector (The Sphere Project, 2018), it appears that the current priorities and conditions are the most favourable for conducting research that they have ever been. Goeldner Byrne et al. (2013, p. 83) state that ‘[o]nly in the past few years, however, have assessment methodologies been formalised to properly inform [evidence-based agricultural interventions in humanitarian settings]’. Despite the time it has taken to get to this point, the establishment of evidence-based assessment methodologies provides a base for future research which can address the system-wide issues which have been lacking in the past. As previously discussed, the lack of resources in disaster settings often results in the deprioritisation of research (Ager et al. 2014, p. 1290). It can be inferred that an increase in funding resulting in improvements to the quality of evidence and evaluations in disasters and humanitarian crises could serve as a potential solution to expanding the evidence-base.
Conclusion
The research clearly states that the current status of evidence and evaluations in the setting of disaster and humanitarian crises is limited and inadequate. Whilst there have been some positive advancements and increased momentum behind evidence-based intervention, significant challenges exist to the production of further evidence-based research. As disasters and humanitarian crises are difficult situations to collect evidence and conduct evaluations, it is likely that for this to be overcome, significant innovations in the way professionals collect this information will be required.
See Also
PPRR Model in Emergencies & Disasters: Is it Relevant Today?
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
References
Ager, A, Burnham, G, Checchi, F, Gayer, M, Grais, R, Henkens, M, Massaquoi, M, Nandy, R & Navarro-Colorado, C 2014, ‘Strengthening the Evidence Base for Health Programming in Humanitarian Crises’, Science, vol. 345, no. 6202, pp. 1290-1292.
Challen, K, Lee, A, Booth, A, Gardois, P, Buckley-Woods, H & Goodacre, S 2012, ‘Where is the Evidence for Emergency Planning: A Scoping review’, BMC Public Health, vol. 12, pp. 542-548.
Goeldner Byrne, K, March, J, McGuire, S, Meissner, L & Sperling, L 2013, ‘The Role of Evidence in Humanitarian Assessment: The Seed System Security Assessment and the Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis’, Disasters, vol.37, pp. 83-104.
Ramesh, A, Blanchet, K, Ensink, J & Roberts, B 2015, ‘Evidence on the Effectiveness of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Interventions on Health Outcomes in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review’, PLOS One, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1-18.
The Sphere Project 2018, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, viewed 29th July 2018, http://www.spherehandbook.org/
Further Reading
Note: Maintaining a website is expensive! To help cover the costs, links marked with an (*) contain affiliate links. That means that if you choose to make a purchase after clicking the link, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
* Evaluation in Contexts of Fragility, Conflict and Violence: Guidance from Global Evaluation Practitioners – ed. Hur Hussnain, Lauren Kelly & Simona Somma
* Disaster Evaluation Research: A Field Guide – Edmund Ricci, Ernesto Pretto Jr. & Knut Sundnes
* The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction – ed. Ben Wisner, J.C. Gaillard & Ilan Kelman
* Unnatural Disasters: Why Most Responses to Risk and Climate Change Fail But Some Succeed – Gonzalo Lizarralde
By Nathan Linton
First published 28 August 2021. Last updated 10 June 2023.
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe below and get the latest updates straight to your inbox. By submitting your information, you’re giving me permission to email you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Pingback: The PPRR Model in Emergencies & Disasters: Is it Relevant Today?
Comments are closed.