It is a requirement of the European Union that there is a project evaluation strategy for all thematic network projects and the LE:NOTRE Project is no exception to this rule. As well as providing the necessary checks for the funding organisation, that their financial support to the project is being put to good use, the main purpose of project evaluation is seen as being to act as a project management tool. The intention, as far as the LE:NOTRE Project is concerned, is that the evaluation process should, in the first instance, be envisaged as a tool for providing ongoing feedback during the course of the project, such that it can be acted upon as soon as possible in order to optimise its effectiveness. This is in contrast to an approach which simply views evaluation as something which occurs exclusively after the project has been completed, at a stage when it is too late to respond positively to constructive criticism and such that its results can no longer have a beneficial effect on the project outcome.
Two main forms of evaluation are envisaged for the LE:NOTRE Project, both ad hoc and systematic, and these forms will be undertaken both internally and externally. Ad hoc evaluation will take the form of a general request to both all network member schools (internal), as well as to members of each of the partner organisations (external) to provide overall feedback as well as specific comments on any aspects of the project which they feel appropriate. In addition, feedback will be specifically requested on the preparations for and the organisation of the spring workshop.
The project results can be thought of as being of two distinct types, both of which will be subject to all of these evaluation processes. The formal results of the project will take the form of the specific outputs which have been identified as the products of each of the three years of the Network’s activities. These are listed in Chapter X and will each be evaluated both internally and externally (see below). The second class of project results will be less tangible and thus harder to evaluate, but can perhaps be considered as being more important as far as the long term is concerned. In order to distinguish them from the concrete outputs, these can be referred to as project outcomes. These can be seen as what are referred to in the list of formal project goals (see Chapter 2) and include: strengthening the European landscape architecture academic community; moving towards convergence of courses; developing improved approaches to teaching; enhancing the scope for mobility and the research potential of the discipline, and developing better communications with professional bodies and public authorities. Although harder to assess, it is felt that the achievement of these outcomes will provide deeper and more lasting benefits than the achievements of the concrete outputs, which can be viewed merely as means for moving towards the attainment of these wider goals.

Internal evaluation
Systematic internal evaluation will be undertaken by the steering committee as part of the ongoing project management. At the end of the year, they will compare the project objectives as set out at the start of the year with the degree to which they have been achieved. The structure and organisation of the project will also be the subject of internal reflection by the members of the steering committee. A steering committee member will also be associated with each of the working groups and they will provide feedback to the steering group as a whole, together with the working group chair persons, on the way in which the working groups have functioned, together with suggestions on how their operation could be improved. These comments, and the extent to which it has been possible to react to them during the course of the project year, will be incorporated in an internal evaluation report. In this way an attempt will be made to look at the achievement of both the defined outputs and the achievement of the wider goals. This report on both these aspects will be made available both the European Union, all members of the Network, to the Partner Organisations and not least to the Scientific Advisory Board.

External evaluation
External evaluation will be carried out by the members of the Scientific Advisory Board, a group of senior European landscape architecture academics, who are no longer directly associated with any of the Network Member Schools (see Appendix C).
The project goals, which are set out in full in this Handbook, comprise two major, but separate components. The first of these relates to a series of processes involving the development of mechanisms for closer collaboration between network member schools, while the other involves the preparation of a number of specified project outputs. It is envisaged that the external evaluation process should consider both of these. Although there are outputs identified which are to be produced throughout the envisaged three-year lifespan of the project, generally speaking, the process of developing closer and more intense collaboration between landscape architecture schools in Europe (the project outcomes) is likely to have greater significance at the earlier stages of the project – both on a year on year basis as well as throughout each individual year of the project – while the concrete outputs will take on greater significance as the project progresses. For this reason it is suggested that the pattern of external evaluation reflects this shift in priorities.
In the first year of the project, the Scientific Advisory Board will also be asked to comment of the concept behind the project as a whole and the extent to which they feel it responds to the overall objectives of the Thematic Network Programme with a view to being able to make possible adjustments to the bid for the forthcoming year.
In addition to the Scientific Advisory Board, senior colleagues in the USA and New Zealand have expressed an interest in following the progress of the project and a willingness to provide a degree of external feedback on the project