Difference between revisions of "Evaluation phase (phase 6)"
From Crisiscommunication.fi wiki
|(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)|
|Line 39:||Line 39:|
:After a crisis
Latest revision as of 08:11, 30 July 2014
- 1 Characteristics of the evaluation phase
- 2 Recommendations supporting empowerment in the evaluation phase
- 3 Technology aspects and how it supports the evaluation phase
- 4 Examples of best practices
Characteristics of the evaluation phase
- Includes actions to form an overall picture of the past emergency.
- Will help to update preparedness plans.
Public perception and motivation
- Although most people may want to forget and move on, there is a window of opportunity for awareness education.
- The people will answer questionnaires if they are well formulated, but will soon tire of answering them, while the results of interpreting or overlapping studies can be weak or even misleading.
Recommendations supporting empowerment in the evaluation phase
- Attention needs to be drawn to lessons learned, as people may be eager to resume normal life, rather than dwell on what has happened and how this needs to be taken into account in the future.
- To serve empowerment in the case of future threats, an analysis of what has happened, reflection and learning, can be initiated using the contacts previously built with citizen groups and public, civil society and private organisations.
- Monitoring social and news media shows how people look back on the crisis situation.
- In the aftermath of a crisis, the organisations involved need to be accountable for how they dealt with the crisis. This includes the crisis management measures taken.
- In the response network the crisis events need to be evaluated and lessons learned addressed in the wider network of all social groups and associations, public and private organisations involved.
Technology aspects and how it supports the evaluation phase
- Technology is functional again.
- The careful design of online queries is important.
- Social media offer a source for data mining in the evaluation phase.
How technology could support public resilience
- Filtering and data mining: time-stamped social media content can help in forming a detailed report of what has happened. Applications for mapping or placing tweets on timelines can help learning from past crises and in developing new ways to engage with the public through tailored risk and crisis communication. (Wendling, Radisch & Jacobzone 2013, p. 24–25.)
- Social networks can be utilized in collecting feedback.
Examples of best practices
- The community-initiated Facebook groups that emerged in Australia during the 2010/2011 floods provided real-time situational information originating from several public authorities and the general public. Some of these groups still actively provide local emergency information and provide public authorities with a chance to utilize and review informal communications. (Bird, Ling & Haynes 2012.) https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/CQ-Flood-Update/145906185464161?fref=ts
- After the Galena flood in Alaska, residents have taken the lead throughout the rebuilding/future mitigation phase. The Yukon River Rescue Facebook page is used to help coordinate fundraising efforts and share information in the Anchorage area for the Yukon River flood response: https://www.facebook.com/YukonRiverRescueAnchorage
- In Akiachaka, Alaska, local students play a key role in helping make their villages stronger, safer and more self-reliant. Students are trained on how to collect data, which is then utilized e.g. in mitigation plans: http://www.ak-prepared.com/plans/mitigation/documents/Akiachak%20BestPractice.pdf.pdf