A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service (UES) assessments reveals that most studies focus on Europe, North America, and China, with a city-scale approach. The assessment methods include biophysical models, GIS, and valuation, but few findings have been implemented in land use policy. UES are categorized into provisioning, regulating, habitat/supporting, and cultural services. Regulating services, such as air quality and carbon sequestration, are the most studied, followed by supporting and cultural services. Provisioning services are less frequently analyzed. The review highlights the need for more research on the relationships between biodiversity and UES, as well as the integration of stakeholder engagement in UES studies. The study also emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and the development of appropriate indicators and models for UES assessment. While many studies use empirical methods, there is a lack of comprehensive models that account for the complexity of UES. The review also notes the need for better integration of UES into urban planning and policy, as well as the development of tools and frameworks for UES implementation. The findings indicate that most studies focus on the supply side of UES rather than demand, and that there is a need for more research on the trade-offs and synergies between UES and other quality of life goals. The review concludes that further research is needed to improve the understanding of UES and their integration into urban planning and policy.A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service (UES) assessments reveals that most studies focus on Europe, North America, and China, with a city-scale approach. The assessment methods include biophysical models, GIS, and valuation, but few findings have been implemented in land use policy. UES are categorized into provisioning, regulating, habitat/supporting, and cultural services. Regulating services, such as air quality and carbon sequestration, are the most studied, followed by supporting and cultural services. Provisioning services are less frequently analyzed. The review highlights the need for more research on the relationships between biodiversity and UES, as well as the integration of stakeholder engagement in UES studies. The study also emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and the development of appropriate indicators and models for UES assessment. While many studies use empirical methods, there is a lack of comprehensive models that account for the complexity of UES. The review also notes the need for better integration of UES into urban planning and policy, as well as the development of tools and frameworks for UES implementation. The findings indicate that most studies focus on the supply side of UES rather than demand, and that there is a need for more research on the trade-offs and synergies between UES and other quality of life goals. The review concludes that further research is needed to improve the understanding of UES and their integration into urban planning and policy.