Table 2.

Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Participants: Racialised individuals and families of any age. - Definitions of racialised communities varied, depending on the country. - Racialised communities were identified from majority white, high income [69], developed countries (defined by a country not requiring developmental aid, under the rules of a multilateral or bilateral agency; [70]. - A broad range of terms for racialised individuals/families (see Table A1, Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4) were used for the search, to identify all available literature in this area. Majority sample from racialised communities (n > 50). All ages, genders, and socio-economic status’	Literature that did not focus on racialised communities.
Design: Experimental, quantitative research design for comparison of results through time and between conditions. Mixed methods studies were eligible but only quantitative data was synthesised.	Literature written in non-English language. Non-published papers, dissertation theses and conference papers. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, relevant studies extracted from the reference list from these reviews were included. Solely qualitative research (excluded for clearer synthesis)
Intervention: Any active involvement with green space [71]. - Recreation use to improve mental/physical health (e.g., exercise, walking, playing), aesthetic appreciation/inspiration for culture, art/design, tourism, spiritual experience, sense of place. - Involvement could take place in diverse types of green spaces (e.g., community woodlands, urban parks, gardens, wetlands, [72]. Activity in green space of any frequency/duration. Individual or community level access.	Research that focused on urban planning/urban forestry, with a geographical focus
Outcome: Measures that evaluated: barriers, frequency, quality, and views of green space for racialised communities.	Research without complete data