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.

对模拟灾难（例如演习）的评估和实际响应是重要的活动。但是，很少关注如何编写记录此类事件的报告。一个关键问题是如何使它们对从事灾难风险管理的专业人员尽可能有用。在这里，我们关注书面评估的三个方面：评估对象的描述方式，分析的描述方式以及结论的描述方式。这项基于真实评估文件的实证实验要求84位荷兰市长和危机管理专业人员评估上述三个方面的感知有用性。结果表明评估的撰写方式很重要。特别，当评估的分析和结论更加清晰时，其用于学习目的的评估的有用性就会提高。相比之下，用于结论性目的的评估只能通过结论的明确性加以改进。这些发现对应记录灾害管理评估的方式有影响。