Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of quality assessment tools for urban green spaces to evaluate their replicability, comparability and validity. We assessed the characteristics of 15 published, multi-dimensional, direct observation tools regarding: publication, development, features and included dimensions. Even though all tools show acceptable inter-rater variability, there is a notable variability in their characteristics, from required time to conduct the assessment to the number of included items. Additionally, some specific dimensions are under-represented, and the study units' definitions are feeble. We showcased the need for new tools that are more comprehensive and include more consistent reporting measures.