The mapping of the damage caused by natural disasters is a crucial step in deciding on the actions to take at the international, national, and local levels. The large variety of representations that we have observed leads to problems of transfer and variations in analysis. In this article, we propose a representation, Regular Dot map (RD), and we compare it to 4 others routinely used to visualise post-disaster damage. Our comparison is based on a user study in which a set of participants carried out various tasks on multiple datasets using the various visualisations. We then analysed the behaviour during the experiment using three approaches: (1) quantitative analysis of user answers according to the reality on the ground, (2) quantitative analysis of user preferences in terms of perceived effectiveness and appearance, and (3) qualitative analysis of the data collected using an eye tracker. The results of this study lead us to believe that RD is the best compromise in terms of effectiveness among the various representations studied.