English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The evaluation of simulated disasters (for example, exercises) and real responses are important activities. However, little attention has been paid to how reports documenting such events should be written. A key issue is how to make them as useful as possible to professionals working in disaster risk management. Here, we focus on three aspects of a written evaluation: how the object of the evaluation is described, how the analysis is described, and how the conclusions are described. This empirical experiment, based on real evaluation documents, asked 84 Dutch mayors and crisis management professionals to evaluate the perceived usefulness of the three aspects noted above. The results showed that how evaluations are written does matter. Specifically, the usefulness of an evaluation intended for learning purposes is improved when its analysis and conclusions are clearer. In contrast, evaluations used for accountability purposes are only improved by the clarity of the conclusion. These findings have implications for the way disaster management evaluations should be documented.

How Can We Make Disaster Management Evaluations More Useful? An Empirical Study of Dutch Exercise Evaluations