Müzelerin bulundukları kentin, bölgenin ya da ülkenin imajına ve prestijine etkisi oldukça büyüktür. Çünkü yerli ya da yabancı turistler tarafından ziyaret edilmektedirler. Kullanıcı bakımından özel bir grup olan turistlerin sıklıkla ziyaret ettikleri müzelerin dış mekânları en az müze binasının kendisi kadar önemlidir. Bu sebeple müze bahçelerinin mevcut durumlarındaki eksik yönlerinin belirlenip, geliştirmesi gerekmektedir. Bu araştırmada da Türkiye'nin Trabzon kentinde bulunan müze bahçelerinin fiziksel peyzaj özellikleri incelenmiş ve kullanıcıların bu bahçelerden memnuniyet düzeyleri belirlenmiştir. Araştırmaya toplam üç müze; Ayasofya Müzesi, Atatürk Köşkü Müzesi, Türk Eğitim Tarihi ve Teknoloji Müzesi dâhil edilmiştir. Müze bahçelerinin değerlendirilmesi için puantaj yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu yöntem ile ilk aşamada müzeler; kentteki konumu, yakın çevre ilişkileri, ulaşılabilirliği, arazi plastiği, etkinlik mekânları, klimatik faktörleri, donatıları, su öğeleri, bitki ve yaban hayatı varlığı, manzarası, bahçesinin olup olmaması, tasarımı, güvenlik durumu, konfor ve uygunluk özellikleri açısından puanlanarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Bu aşamanın sonucunda; bahçeler aldıkları puanlara göre birbirleriyle kıyaslanmış ve böylece her bir müze bahçesinin fiziksel açıdan olumlu ve olumsuz özellikleri ortaya konulmuştur. İkinci ve son aşamada ise müze bahçelerini kullanan kentli ve kent dışından 135 ziyaretçiyle anket yapılmış, bahçelerin memnuniyet düzeyleri belirlenmiştir. Bu aşamada ziyaretçilere; müze bahçesinden memnun olup olmadıkları sorulmuştur. Çalışma sonucunda belirlenen eksiklikler; açık yeşil alan yetersizlikleri, konfor eksikliği, donatı, su öğesi, bitkisel materyal eksikliği yani peyzaj kriterlerine gereken önem verilmemesi olarak sıralanabilir

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 Haghia Sophia Museum, Atatürk Pavilion Museum, Turkish Education History and Technology Museum. Many methods could be used for evaluation of outdoor spaces. These methods are often based on observations and personal assessments, which results in criticism and poor reliability of the findings. The reliability could be established by arriving at conclusions through concrete evidence. One of the approaches that could accomplish reliability is to provide a numerical basis for all values and criteria that contribute to the space by scoring field observations and measurements. The scoring and evaluation method was applied for the gardens of 3 museums located in the city of Trabzon. In the evaluation of museum gardens, 62 design criteria (urban location, relations with immediate environment, accessibility, area plastics, activity spaces, climatic factors, furniture, water elements, presence of plants and wildlife, scenery, presence of a garden, its design, safety status, comfort and convenience) were established with a literature review and utilized. As is the case for all outdoor spaces, it has become a necessity to conduct assessment studies on museum outdoors. Each criterion was evaluated with the observations conducted by the author in every area within the museum site plan and both the staff and visitors were interviewed. For each feature included in the scorecard, the researchers assigned values between 0 and 3 based on the conducted examinations, observations and interviews. The features included in the scorecard are assigned “0” points if the related feature is not present in the museum garden, '1' point if itşs presence is little, '2,' if its presence is intermediary and '3' points were assigned if its presence is plenty and a total success score was determined for each museum garden based on the determined three most significant design features for this museum garden and the museum gardens were compared based on these success scores. For a total of 62 design criteria, success rates were calculated by dividing 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 achieve expected benefits, then no matter how successful the garden design, it could be argued that the garden has failed. Thus, in the second stage, satisfaction of users about museum gardens were inquired. A questionnaire that was applied to a total of 135 users, 45 in each museum. In the question the participants were asked if they were satisfied with the museum garden on a 5-point scale (5 = very, 1 = no), Based on the scoring table and all criteria, the Hagia Sophia Museum received the highest score with 130 points and the success rate for this museum was calculated as 71%. Accordingly, it was considered as successful. If Ataturk is a mansion, it has a total score of 125 and the success rate is 67%. Atatürk Pavilion scored 125 points and the success rate for this museum was 67%. Atatürk Pavillion was also considered successful. Turkish Education History and Technology failed because they had a success rate of 0-30% based on the final classification. Responses to the question "Are you generally satisfied with the museum garden?" demonstrated that users were most satisfied with Atatürk Pavilion Museum garden (mean 4.48) and Hagia Sophia Museum garden (mean 4.44). Trabzon Education History and Technology Museum (mean 1.68) was the last in satisfaction ranking. This finding was also consistent with the museum gardens scorecard determined in the first study phase. However, it was determined by the findings of the present study that the museum gardens in Trabzon scrutinized in the study especially Trabzon Education History and Technology Museum was not suitable for use by all user groups, the selected furniture were incompatible with the historical structure, there were deficiencies in open green spaces, and in addition, due to the lack of comfort, furniture, and water elements, these spaces do not enable the transfer the cultural form and lifestyles to future generations, and it was further determined that these spaces could not provide user satisfaction. The most important consequence of the work is that the landscape features of museum gardens affect user satisfaction. As the success of landscape features increases, user satisfaction also increases. Thus, museum gardens that include adequate furniture-plant-water elements, and that are natural, informative, legible, comfortable, and with comfortable access and transportation should be constructed. The museum authorities should take these issues into consideration and should revise and expand the gardens, or should consider museum gardens as a part of the museum based on the abovementioned criteria.