The influence on the image and prestige of the city, the region or the country they are in is very large. Because they are visited by local or foreign tourists. The outdoor spaces of the museums, which are often visited by tourists as a special group for the user, are at least as important as the museum building itself. For this reason, museum gardens need to identify and improve their incomplete aspects in their current situation. In this study, the physical landscape features of the museum gardens in Trabzon, Turkey were examined and the satisfaction level of the users was determined. Three museums in total; Hagia Sophia Museum, Atatürk Museum, Turkish History of Education and Technology Museum. The method of scoring was used for the evaluation of museum gardens. In this first stage; museum gardes classified in terms of its location, proximity to the environment, accessibility, land plastics, activity spaces, climatic factors, equipment, water elements, plants and wildlife assets, scenery, whether or not the garden, design, safety situation, comfort and convenience. At the end of this section; The gardens are compared to each other according to the scores they have received, and thus the positive and negative aspects of each museum's garden have been revealed. In the second and last stage, a survey was conducted with 135 visitors from the city and outside the city using the museum gardens, and the satisfaction levels of the gardens were determined. At this stage, visitors; They were asked whether they were pleased with the museum garden. Deficiencies identified in the study; lack of open green spaces, lack of comfort, equipmant, waterscapes and plant material A total of 3 museums were included in the study. These are HaghiaSophia Museum, Atatürk Pavilion Museum, Turkish Education Historyand Technology Museum. Many methods could be used for evaluation ofoutdoor spaces. These methods are often based on observations andpersonal assessments, which results in criticism and poor reliability ofthe findings. The reliability could be established by arriving atconclusions through concrete evidence. One of the approaches that couldaccomplish reliability is to provide a numerical basis for all values andcriteria that contribute to the space by scoring field observations andmeasurements. The scoring and evaluation method was applied for thegardens of 3 museums located in the city of Trabzon. In the evaluation ofmuseum gardens, 62 design criteria (urban location, relations withimmediate environment, accessibility, area plastics, activity spaces,climatic factors, furniture, water elements, presence of plants andwildlife, scenery, presence of a garden, its design, safety status, comfortand convenience) were established with a literature review and utilized. As is the case for all outdoor spaces, it has become a necessity to conductassessment studies on museum outdoors.Each criterion was evaluated with the observations conducted bythe author in every area within the museum site plan and both the staffand visitors were interviewed. For each feature included in the scorecard,the researchers assigned values between 0 and 3 based on the conductedexaminations, observations and interviews. The features included in thescorecard are assigned “0” points if the related feature is not present inthe museum garden, '1' point if itşs presence is little, '2,' if its presenceis intermediary and '3' points were assigned if its presence is plenty anda total success score was determined for each museum garden based onthe determined three most significant design features for this museumgarden and the museum gardens were compared based on these successscores. For a total of 62 design criteria, success rates were calculated bydividing the total scores of each museum garden by the maximum score(62x3 = 186) available. Success rates were determined as follows: 0-30%failed, 30-45% inadequate, 45-60% partially successful, 60-85%successful and 85-100% very successful.When the users have no benefit or if they could not achieveexpected benefits, then no matter how successful the garden design, itcould be argued that the garden has failed. Thus, in the second stage,satisfaction of users about museum gardens were inquired. Aquestionnaire that was applied to a total of 135 users, 45 in eachmuseum. In the question the participants were asked if they weresatisfied with the museum garden on a 5-point scale (5 = very, 1 = no),Based on the scoring table and all criteria, the Hagia SophiaMuseum received the highest score with 130 points and the success ratefor this museum was calculated as 71%. Accordingly, it was consideredas successful. If Ataturk is a mansion, it has a total score of 125 and thesuccess rate is 67%. Atatürk Pavilion scored 125 points and the successrate for this museum was 67%. Atatürk Pavillion was also consideredsuccessful. Turkish Education History and Technology failed becausethey had a success rate of 0-30% based on the final classification.Responses to the question "Are you generally satisfied with themuseum garden?" demonstrated that users were most satisfied withAtatürk Pavilion Museum garden (mean 4.48) and Hagia Sophia Museumgarden (mean 4.44). Trabzon Education History and Technology Museum(mean 1.68) was the last in satisfaction ranking. This finding was alsoconsistent with the museum gardens scorecard determined in the firststudy phase.However, it was determined by the findings of the present studythat the museum gardens in Trabzon scrutinized in the study especiallyTrabzon Education History and Technology Museum was not suitable foruse by all user groups, the selected furniture were incompatible with thehistorical structure, there were deficiencies in open green spaces, and inaddition, due to the lack of comfort, furniture, and water elements, thesespaces do not enable the transfer the c