Combining the temporal and geographic discrepancies noted in figures 1‐4, we estimate the correlation between the share of respondents in a governorate reporting to rely on a food coping strategy and measures of violence in the month before the survey. Specifically, estimates of the following specification are presented: Share_Copinggt = γg + φt + β ln(Violenceg,t‐1)+ εgt where _g_ denotes governorate and _t_ denotes the month‐year time period; _Share_Coping_ denotes the share of the respondents that report relying on the food coping strategy being analyzed, where specifications are estimated using each of the five coping strategies collected by the WFP survey; _Violence_ denotes the measure of violence being analyzed, where there are different specifications for the number of incidents and the number of fatalities; γ denotes a governorate fixed effect that captures all time‐invariant factors that affect coping strategies in governorate _g_ ; and φ denotes time‐specific factors that affect all governorates at the same time period (such as a sudden tightening of the ports).

The coefficient of interest is β, which denotes the correlation between violence in the month before the WFP survey and the share of respondents in a governorate who report relying on the food coping strategy for at least one day in the previous week, once controlling for governorate and time‐specific factors. If coping strategies were higher (corresponding to worse food access) in regions where there was more violence in the month before the survey, one would expect β to be greater than zero. The actual coefficient can be interpreted as the change in the share of the mobile phone‐using population relying on food coping strategies in response to a doubling of the violence, which represents an increase of 70 fatalities in a governorate in a month.<sup>17</sup> Table 1 reports estimates from the empirical specification. Columns (1)‐(4) report specifications using the number of people killed as the measure of violence; and columns (5)‐(8) report specifications using the number of incidents as the measure of violence. Each panel uses a different food coping strategy as the dependent variable. Columns (1) and (5) estimate a sparse specification omitting the governorate and time‐specific factors; columns (2) and (6) add only the governorate‐specific factors; columns (3) and (7) add both governorate and time‐specific factors; and columns (4) and (8) estimate a specification adding a Houthi indicator to the specification and only includes time‐specific factors.<sup>18, 19</sup> The estimates in all columns corroborate the graphical patterns presented above‐ there appears to be very little evidence of a correlation between violence the month before the survey and access to food. One cannot reject the hypothesis of no relationship between violence and food coping strategies at conventional significance levels in all specifications, and all estimated coefficients suggest a very small relationship between violence and food coping strategies. The most complete specification including both governorate and time‐specific effects suggests that a doubling of fatalities is associated with an increase in the share of respondents reporting to have reduced the number of meals they consume by 0.0002

> 17 For ease of interpretation, the specification uses the natural logarithm of violence as the dependent variable.  All results are qualitatively identical if the specification instead estimates the relationship in levels.

> 18 Since the Houthi indicator does not vary over time, governorate‐specific factors cannot be added to the specification.

> 19 There are 22 governorates and 28 time periods, so in the most complete specification, the number of observations is still significantly larger than the number of independent variables.

11