Heritage Awareness, Perceived Value, and Community Participation Intentions for the Sustainability of Underground Water Heritage: The Case of Gaziantep Kastels and Livas, Türkiye

Abstract

This study examines the sustainability of underground water heritage through the case of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas in Türkiye, focusing on public perceptions, heritage awareness, perceived value, and participation-related support mechanisms. Although kastels and livas have previously been addressed in architectural, historical, and infrastructural terms, user-centered evidence on their social recognition and conservation-related evaluation remains limited. The study adopts a cross-sectional, survey-based design grounded in sustainable heritage management. The questionnaire was developed for this underground water heritage system and structured around four dimensions: heritage awareness, perceived value, conservation support/participation intention, and governance-, promotion-, and future-oriented perceptions. The instrument was refined through expert review and pilot testing, and the final dataset consisted of 406 valid questionnaires collected through both online and face-to-face administration. Analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and group comparisons. The findings indicate that participants attributed particularly high value to kastels and livas and expressed strong support for their conservation, while current promotion, information tools, and institutional collaboration were evaluated less favorably. Perceived value was strongly associated with conservation support/participation intention. The study offers an empirical basis for socially grounded strategies for the protection, interpretation, and sustainable management of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas.

1. Introduction

Water has been fundamental to the emergence, continuity, and development of human settlements throughout history. Beyond sustaining life, it has shaped technological innovation, spatial organization, and socio-cultural practices. As emphasized by ICOMOS, water is inseparable from cultural heritage because successful water management has historically underpinned both human survival and cultural achievement. In this respect, water-related structures form an important component of cultural heritage, reflecting not only the architectural, engineering, and technological knowledge of the societies that produced them, but also their social and cultural life [1,2,3]. Within this framework, the present study focuses on the underground water heritage of Gaziantep, Türkiye, with particular attention to its livas and kastels in relation to the broader qanat tradition. The historical development of Gaziantep was shaped by environmental conditions that made water supply a critical urban challenge. Owing to the geological structure of the region, a considerable proportion of precipitation infiltrates the ground and contributes to groundwater formation. Since the Gaziantep Plateau contains only a limited number of streams, and the water level of the Alleben River remains relatively low, the city historically required alternative systems of water conveyance. Hot summer conditions would also have caused substantial evaporation losses if water had been transported through surface channels. Under these conditions, the local geological formation, characterized by soft limestone, clayey limestone, and chalk deposits, enabled the excavation of underground tunnels in the bedrock and the conveyance of water from its source to the settlement [2].

This underground conveyance system is associated with the broader qanat tradition, one of the most widespread historical methods of groundwater transport in arid and semi-arid regions. The qanat system is fundamentally based on gently sloping underground tunnels that convey groundwater by gravity alone [2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Historical and technical sources from different periods provide important evidence regarding the construction and maintenance of qanat systems [7,11]. The spread of this technology across a broad geography extending from East Asia to North Africa and beyond demonstrates the long-term significance of subterranean water management as both a technical achievement and a cultural practice [2,10,11,12].

Historical underground water tunnels are known from different parts of Türkiye, including Gaziantep, Van, Özalp, Saray, Ahlat, Birecik, Suruç, Antakya, İskilip, and Zile [10,13]. These systems are referred to by different local names; for example, in Van, Özalp, Saray, and Zile they are known as kehriz [10,14]. In Gaziantep, by contrast, underground water tunnels are known as livas (Figure 1). Forming an extensive subterranean network beneath the historic neighborhoods of the city, the livas system supplied water to houses through domestic wells. Two principal source areas from which water was conveyed to Gaziantep have been identified: Esenbek Spring to the south of the city and Pancarlı Spring to the west [10,15]. Through this system, water was reportedly conveyed not only to Gaziantep but also to Dülük and Aleppo [9]. The network included shafts connecting the tunnels to the surface and distribution points regulating the allocation of water [9,10]. Ottoman records further indicate that the system supplied inns, baths, madrasas, mosques, fountains, and private houses, demonstrating its central role in urban life [9,15].

A major component of this infrastructure is the underground public water-use structure locally known as the kastel. Built underground and carved into rock, kastels functioned as water structures integrated into the livas system. However, their role extended beyond water collection and distribution. They incorporated multiple functions, including pools, wells, baths, toilets, washing spaces, resting areas, ablution areas, and, in some cases, a mosque, thereby operating as multifunctional social spaces within everyday urban life [9]. In this respect, kastels were not merely hydraulic structures but also places of gathering, routine activity, and climatic relief during the hot summer conditions of the city. Among the kastels known to survive today are Pişirici, İhsan Bey, Şeyh Fethullah, Kozluca, Ahmet Çelebi, and İmam Gazali. In addition to these six extant examples, a seventh kastel has also been identified.

UNESCO identifies the Gaziantep livas system as significant not only as an example of a technology widely encountered in different parts of the world, but also because of the scale of its underground network and the distinctive character of its kastel structures [2]. The system constitutes important evidence of intercultural interaction, local technical knowledge, and socio-cultural life. Its construction and long-term operation required substantial technical and engineering knowledge, and its evolution over time produced an integrated and complex urban water infrastructure. The Gaziantep qanat tradition can therefore be understood as both a local heritage system and part of a broader shared human heritage. Although its exact date of origin remains uncertain, the livas and kastels appear to have remained in use for centuries and continued to serve the people of Gaziantep until the 1950s. Today, some of these structures are open to visitors, some have been assigned new functions such as museum use, and some continue to exist within mosque complexes [2].

The relationship between water management and heritage is increasingly recognized as dynamic and multidimensional [16]. Water-related heritage is important not only for understanding historical systems of resource management, but also for addressing contemporary questions of cultural continuity, governance, and sustainability. Yet, despite the strong connection between water and heritage, water-related heritage remains underrepresented in broader global water and sustainable development discussions [16]. In the case of Gaziantep, previous studies have examined livas and kastels primarily from architectural, historical, and infrastructural perspectives [9,10,12,17,18,19]. However, there remains a significant gap in interdisciplinary research addressing these structures in relation to UNESCO recognition, conservation, sustainability, heritage awareness, perceived value, and community participation.

Accordingly, this study investigates the sustainability of Gaziantep’s underground water heritage by focusing on heritage awareness, perceived value, and community participation. Unlike previous studies centered mainly on the physical and historical characteristics of livas and kastels, the present research incorporates participant-based evaluations within the broader framework of cultural heritage and sustainability. More specifically, it explores how public awareness, value attribution, and participation-related attitudes may inform more socially grounded strategies for the long-term conservation of Gaziantep’s livas and kastels.

The study addresses the following research questions:

-

RQ1. What are the general levels of heritage awareness, perceived value, conservation support/participation intention, and governance-, promotion-, and future-oriented perceptions regarding Gaziantep’s kastels and livas?

-

RQ2. What relationships exist among the main dimensions of the study, and do these perceptions differ according to prior UNESCO awareness, visit frequency, and relevant professional background?

Based on the theoretical framework and the sustainability-oriented heritage literature, the study considers the following hypotheses:

H1. 

Heritage awareness is positively associated with perceived value.

H2. 

Heritage awareness is positively associated with conservation support/participation intention.

H3. 

Perceived value is positively associated with conservation support/participation intention.

The conceptual model of the study assumes that heritage awareness constitutes a foundational cognitive condition shaping how participants recognize and interpret the significance of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas. Higher levels of heritage awareness are expected to be associated with stronger perceived value, while perceived value is, in turn, associated with stronger conservation support and participation-related intentions. Heritage awareness is also assumed to have a direct positive association with conservation support/participation intention. Within this framework, governance-, promotion-, and future-oriented perceptions are treated as a complementary evaluative dimension that helps situate these relationships within the broader context of sustainable heritage management (Figure 2).

2. Theoretical Background and Conceptual Framework

2.1. Heritage Awareness in Cultural Heritage Studies

Cultural heritage encompasses both tangible and intangible elements that carry meaning and value for society and contribute to identity, memory, and belonging. In this sense, heritage includes not only monuments, historic buildings, archaeological sites, and museum collections, but also traditions, practices, and other intangible expressions. ICOMOS emphasizes that tangible and intangible heritage should not be treated separately, since together they generate social meaning, value, and context, while their transmission across generations sustains cultural continuity and collective identity [20]. Within this broader framework, heritage awareness has emerged as a multidimensional concept that extends beyond simple knowledge of heritage assets. Rather than referring only to recognition or familiarity, it also includes ethical responsibility, participation, conservation-oriented behavior, and identity formation. This understanding is consistent with major contributions in heritage studies. Smith [21] conceptualizes heritage as a meaning-making process rather than a fixed collection of objects, while Graham et al. [22] stress that heritage is a present-day representation of selected elements of the past and that its value is socially constructed. Byrne [23] similarly argues that heritage should be understood as an active field of social practice and interaction. Macdonald [24] highlights the affective dimension by linking heritage to belonging, memory, and identity, whereas Harrison [25] emphasizes its future-oriented and behavioral dimension, especially in relation to preservation. UNESCO [26] also frames heritage awareness as a process shaped by education, community participation, and sustainability.

Accordingly, heritage awareness may be understood through three interrelated dimensions: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The cognitive dimension refers to knowledge and recognition of heritage; the affective dimension concerns emotional attachment, value attribution, and identity; and the behavioral dimension refers to actions and attitudes related to preservation, sustainability, and intergenerational transmission [21,24,25,27]. This tripartite structure indicates that awareness involves not only knowing heritage but also valuing it and being willing to support its continuity.

From a sustainability perspective, heritage awareness occupies a central place in governance and participatory conservation processes. Studies on World Heritage and community-based heritage management show that higher awareness is associated with stronger local participation, more positive attitudes toward conservation, and more effective governance outcomes [28,29,30]. Similarly, Aziz et al. [31] underline that one of the main conditions for sustainable conservation is the awareness and appreciation of heritage values by local stakeholders. In this respect, low awareness may weaken participation and reduce the long-term effectiveness of conservation efforts, whereas stronger awareness can support collective responsibility and decision-making capacity.

The literature also points to the importance of spatial and experiential engagement in shaping heritage awareness. Research on museums, archaeological sites, and open-air heritage spaces suggests that direct experience can foster stronger cognitive and affective engagement than abstract information alone [32,33,34]. Such encounters deepen interpretation, strengthen emotional connection, and support awareness formation through lived experience. At the same time, heritage awareness plays an important role in the reproduction of identity and belonging, particularly in contexts where local values face pressures of globalization and transformation [35]. Overall, the literature suggests that heritage awareness should be understood as a socially and culturally embedded process that links recognition, valuation, participation, and sustainability. For the present study, this perspective is particularly relevant because the sustainability of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas depends not only on their physical preservation, but also on the extent to which they are recognized, valued, and supported by contemporary users and residents.

2.2. Perceived Value of Heritage Assets

Cultural heritage value refers to the importance and meaning that people attribute to historical remains and encompasses both tangible and intangible cultural heritage. The perception of cultural heritage value reflects an individual’s assessment of cultural heritage [36]. While individuals with a stronger sense of cultural identity derive greater emotional and symbolic value from heritage interactions [19], visitors’ or the public’s high perception of a heritage site’s value leads to outcomes such as interest in its preservation, provision of support, and behavioral participation [37]. It has been found that the historical, artistic, and cultural values perceived by visitors are associated with behavioral outcomes such as voluntary contributions to heritage preservation, visitor satisfaction, and participation in sustainable tourism practices; a significant positive relationship has been identified between perceived value and the willingness to pay for the preservation of architectural heritage [37].

Traditionally, objects and sites considered part of cultural heritage have been divided into six categories of value and significance based on the number of individuals and groups who value the area and its resources, namely international, national, provincial, regional, local, and personal significance [38,39].

As perceptions of heritage evolve and the heritage value of cultural assets is socially constructed [22], this construction process is shaped by individual and collective memory, spatial experiences, and social interactions [40]. The social dimension of value is one of the cornerstones of discussions on conservation, management, and tourism sustainability in the context of cultural heritage [41]. Four types of value that constitute and reinforce the social value of the Altamira World Heritage Site have been identified: existential, aesthetic, economic, and heritage value [41]. Umar, however, notes that in Turkey, particularly in rural and coastal regions, cultural heritage awareness is generally shaped by traditional values and practices, and argues that the sustainable conservation of archaeological heritage sites with rural and coastal characteristics requires a nuanced understanding of the values and perceptions attributed to these areas [42].

2.3. Conservation Support and Community Participation Intentions

As a non-renewable resource, cultural heritage is a social responsibility to be passed on to future generations along with all the values it embodies by associating it with the concept of a “trust”. Encouraging local communities to participate in the preservation of their heritage is part of the mission of World Heritage Sites [43,44]. The “living heritage” approach, which positions heritage sites as dynamic spaces integrating cultural, economic, and social dimensions, encourages community participation and supports the establishment of deeper connections with these sites [45]. In regions where people from diverse cultural backgrounds live, the local community’s perception of heritage becomes a key factor in determining and guiding participation; research in this area is more advanced in some developed countries and has been integrated into policy frameworks [42].

By broadening the definition of heritage, the assessment team should include non-experts, particularly members of groups or individuals with a stake in the property or site under review, in order to conduct a sustainable development assessment [46]. When “local community participation” becomes a priority, it is clear that a more appropriate approach to conservation is being followed [42]. These participants must be positioned as an integral and ongoing component of decision-making, implementation, and monitoring processes [40]. Since cultural heritage sites are often major tourist destinations, they make a significant contribution to the local community’s economy [47]. Involving local stakeholders in tourism planning for heritage and directing tourism revenues toward the local community are crucial for promoting conservation and sustainability [42,47]. In addition to financial benefits, it has been noted that World Heritage Site status instills a sense of pride among local residents, making it easier to secure volunteer participation [48]. A study on the Persian Qanats highlighted the role of education and community participation in fostering positive behavioral changes among tourists and local residents [49].

2.4. Governance, Interpretation, and UNESCO-Related Perceptions

There are at least three key reasons for examining governance in natural and cultural heritage initiatives. These include the importance of cultural heritage in economic development, the way funds are managed for historic sites and cultural institutions, and the significant role of civil society in cultural matters [50]. Studies highlighting the importance of stakeholder collaboration in heritage management have also emphasized the necessity of involving local communities, professionals, and policymakers to address governance challenges and promote sustainable tourism [45]. Governance models must be restructured to ensure greater inclusivity and adaptability. Participatory management models have emerged as alternatives to state-centered conservation frameworks and have promoted multi-stakeholder and multi-scale approaches to heritage management [40]. The communities and residents of a specific region serve as powerful catalysts for heritage management. Local communities should view heritage as a dynamic resource that is managed regionally and preserved for future generations [51].

Public participation in heritage management and interpretation revitalizes cultural heritage through the preservation of traditions [52,53]. UNESCO has emphasized the importance of sustainable heritage management through the participation and collaboration of local communities [52]. With UNESCO’s call for more inclusive management strategies that incorporate local knowledge and local perspectives, this call has also begun to be echoed by international organizations. Inviting local communities to participate in decisions regarding their heritage enables heritage managers to borrow knowledge from local communities to enhance their conservation efforts [47].

In the present study, governance-, promotion-, and future-oriented perceptions are treated as a single analytical dimension because they do not refer to private value attribution or direct participation tendencies at the individual level, but rather to participants’ evaluations of the broader institutional, interpretive, and future-oriented conditions surrounding heritage conservation. In this respect, the dimension is conceptualized not as part of the core awareness-value-support pathway, but as a complementary evaluative layer that helps situate these relationships within the wider framework of sustainable heritage management.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The settlement history of Gaziantep dates back to at least the late fifth century, and the city is located along the banks of Alleben Creek. Due to the geological structure of the Gaziantep region, a considerable portion of precipitation infiltrates the ground and contributes to the formation of groundwater resources. Since the Gaziantep Plateau contains only a limited number of streams, the water level of Alleben Creek remains relatively low, and the hot summer conditions increase the need for water conveyance within the settlement. Under such climatic conditions, if water were transported through surface channels, a substantial amount would be lost through evaporation, particularly during the summer months. In this context, the local geological formation, characterized by soft limestone, clayey limestone, and chalk deposits, enabled the excavation of underground water tunnels in the bedrock, through which water could be conveyed from its source to the urban settlement [2].

The livas, which constitute the main subject of this study as a form of underground water tunnel, formed a network beneath the historic neighborhoods of Gaziantep and supplied water to houses through domestic wells. Two principal source areas from which water is known to have been conveyed to Gaziantep through the livas system have been identified: Esenbek Spring, located to the south of Gaziantep, and Pancarlı Spring, located to the west of the city [10,15]. Through this system, water was reportedly conveyed not only to Gaziantep but also to Dülük and Aleppo [9]. The spatial relationship between Pancarlı Spring, Esenbek Spring, and Gaziantep city center is shown in Figure 3.

Within the livas system, ventilation shafts were constructed at regular intervals to connect the channels to the surface. Distribution points were also established to regulate the allocation of water conveyed through the system [9,10]. Water carried by the livas was delivered to users through kastels, pools, wells, fountains, and ganes. Ottoman-period records indicate that the livas line functioned as a major water supply network serving many important urban structures, including inns, baths, madrasas, mosques, fountains, and private houses [1]. In this respect, the historical distribution system and the spatial organization of the livas network provide important evidence for understanding the relationship between water infrastructure and urban life in Gaziantep.

Within the scope of this study, six extant kastels and one newly identified kastel are included as part of the documentary and spatial background of the research area. Since the survey focuses on participants’ general perceptions of kastels and livas rather than on individual kastels, these structures are presented here for contextual purposes only. Their locations are shown in Figure 4, while

Table 1. Documentation of the seven kastels: names, plans, images, and descriptions.

No.	Kastel Name	Date	Plan	Image	Description
1	İmam Gazali	Unknown; estimated to predate 1743			This kastel is entirely subterranean. Its plan has a relatively simple layout, comparable to that of the Ahmet Çelebi Kastel. The entrance is defined by a pointed arch, and a light well is located within the interior. The rock-cut space to the left of the entrance was also used as a gathering area for women.
2	Kozluca	Estimated 16th century			Located to the south of Kozluca Mosque, this structure is classified as a partially subterranean kastel. It is the only extant kastel situated beneath a residential building. Inappropriate later additions have been removed. One of its two vaulted spaces contains a pool.
3	Pişirici (Beşinci)	13th century			This is likely the oldest surviving kastel in Gaziantep and the one with the most comprehensive plan scheme. The structure is entirely below ground level, with no superimposed building above it. Water is supplied to the kastel through a channel located at its southeastern corner.
4	Şeyh Fethullah	16th century			This kastel forms part of a larger complex including a mosque, hamam, madrasa, and zawiya. It is partially subterranean and belongs to the group of semi-underground kastels. The structure contains two pools, each 26 cm in depth. A connection to the livas system is located on the southwestern wall.
5	İhsan Bey (Esenbek)	15th century			Located beneath the courtyard of the mosque, this kastel belongs entirely to the group of fully subterranean kastels. It was carved into the rock, while its spatial subdivisions are defined by masonry walls. Today, the structure functions as part of the Museum of the War of Independence.
6	Ahmet Çelebi	17th century			Situated in the courtyard of Ahmet Çelebi Mosque, this kastel consists of a rock-cut structure containing a single pool and a well on its southern wall. Ventilation and daylight are provided through a skylight. The structure includes four channels carrying clean water and a separate tunnel connection for wastewater discharge. Compared with the other kastels, its plan is relatively simple.
7	Newly identified kastel (tentatively identified as Kabasakal)	Unknown	-		The dating, plan characteristics, and architectural features of this newly identified kastel have not yet been fully established. It is provisionally associated with Kabasakal and is included here as a newly identified element of Gaziantep’s underground water heritage system.

Note: The plans were adapted from [10].

provides their names, plans, visual materials, and brief descriptive information.

In addition to their historical and cultural significance, the kastels and the broader livas system face a range of contemporary pressures that increase their vulnerability. These include unauthorized additions or interventions in and around kastel structures, long-term neglect and insufficient maintenance, and various forms of human-induced deterioration. More recently, the damage associated with the 6 February 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes has further highlighted the fragility of this underground heritage system. Environmental pressures also constitute an important concern. In particular, the reduction in water resources and water levels under conditions associated with climate change may critically affect the water-related functioning and integrity of the system. At the same time, the emergence of the seventh kastel following the 2023 earthquake suggests that additional components of this underground network may still remain undocumented or insufficiently understood. Taken together, these conditions indicate that Gaziantep’s underground water heritage should be evaluated not only as a legacy of the past, but also as a vulnerable and still only partially revealed system requiring sustained documentation, conservation, and monitoring.

3.2. Research Design

This study was designed as a cross-sectional, survey-based investigation to examine how users and residents perceive Gaziantep’s kastels and livas in relation to heritage awareness, perceived value, conservation support/participation intention, and governance-, promotion-, and future-oriented perceptions. The research was grounded in the assumption that the sustainability of underground water heritage should be assessed not only through its physical and historical attributes but also through the perceptions, evaluations, and support mechanisms of its contemporary users. In this respect, the study approaches kastels and livas as heritage assets whose long-term conservation depends on both their material preservation and their social recognition within a sustainable heritage management framework.

The research design followed a sequential and theory-driven structure. After defining the research problem, a review of the relevant literature was undertaken to establish the conceptual basis of the study and to identify the main analytical dimensions. On this basis, four measurement dimensions were constructed and used to guide the development of the questionnaire. The draft instrument was then subjected to expert review and pilot testing in order to improve item clarity, conceptual consistency, and measurement adequacy before the main survey was conducted. The final dataset was analyzed through descriptive, psychometric, and relational analytical procedures. The overall logic and sequence of the research design are presented in Figure 5.

3.3. Questionnaire Design and Measurement Dimensions

The questionnaire used in this study was developed based on the relevant literature and the specific characteristics of Gaziantep kastels and livas as elements of underground water heritage. In addition to the main measurement dimensions, the questionnaire also included a set of demographic and control variables, such as age, education level, duration of residence in Gaziantep, visit frequency, and prior awareness of the UNESCO Tentative List status of kastels and livas. These variables were included to provide a general profile of the participants and to enable group-based comparisons in the later stages of analysis.

The main body of the questionnaire was structured around four dimensions. The heritage awareness dimension was designed to measure participants’ level of familiarity with the heritage asset, their knowledge of its historical and functional characteristics, and their awareness of its cultural significance [31,40]. The perceived value dimension was constructed to assess the historical, social, cultural, educational, and symbolic values attributed to kastels and livas by local users and residents [22,39,41,48]. The conservation support/participation intention dimension focused on participants’ attitudes toward conservation priorities, public support, civic engagement, and willingness to take part in awareness-raising or heritage-related initiatives [52,54,55]. Finally, the governance, promotion, and future-oriented perceptions dimension was grounded in the literature on heritage governance, interpretation, UNESCO/World Heritage perceptions, and risk-related evaluations concerning heritage sites [44,48,50,56].

A five-point Likert scale was employed only for the items under Sections B–E, which represent the four main measurement dimensions of the study, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Section A, by contrast, consisted of demographic and control variables and therefore did not use the Likert-scale format. The wording of the items was formulated in a clear and direct manner in order to minimize ambiguity and avoid overly leading expressions. In addition, three open-ended questions were included at the end of the questionnaire to obtain participants’ views on priority actions for the conservation of kastels and livas and on the most effective ways to promote these heritage assets.

Before the main data collection, the draft questionnaire was reviewed by five experts in the fields of cultural heritage, conservation, and/or survey-based social science research in order to assess the clarity, relevance, and appropriateness of the items. Following this expert review, a pilot application was conducted with 50 participants representing the target respondent profile. The pilot process aimed to evaluate item comprehensibility, possible repetition between items, and the overall flow of the questionnaire. Based on the feedback obtained from the expert review and the pilot application, minor revisions were made to the wording and ordering of several items, and the final version of the questionnaire was established.

The final instrument consisted of 41 items in total, including demographic and control variables, Likert-type measurement items, and open-ended questions. For clarity, the questionnaire was organized into five sections. Section A included demographic and control variables, such as gender, age, education, occupation, length of residence in Gaziantep, visit frequency, and prior awareness of the UNESCO Tentative List status of kastels and livas. Since this section did not contain Likert-type measurement items, it is not included in

Table 2. Dimensions and sub-indicators of the study.

Section	Dimension	Scope	Item Code	Indicator/Assessment Item	Theoretical Basis and Key References
B	Heritage awareness	Measures participants’ level of familiarity with kastels and livas, their knowledge of their functions, their evaluation of them within the scope of underground water heritage, and their understanding of their place within cultural heritage.	B1	Familiarity with kastels and livas	[31,40]
			B2	Knowledge of the functions of kastels and livas in relation to water supply and water use
			B3	Knowledge that kastels and livas had social functions
			B4	Evaluation of kastels and livas as part of Gaziantep’s cultural heritage
			B5	Viewing kastels and livas within the scope of underground water heritage
			B6	Understanding the importance of underground water heritage in terms of urban history and life culture
C	Perceived value	Measures the historical, cultural, educational, urban, and sustainability-related value attributed to kastels and livas by participants.	C1	Perception of historical value	[39,41,48]
			C2	Cultural identity value
			C3	Heritage value to be transmitted to future generations
			C4	Educational and awareness-raising potential
			C5	Value in terms of sustainable water culture
			C6	Value in terms of urban memory and sense of belonging
			C7	Potential to contribute to national and international recognition
D	Conservation support/participation intention	Measures participants’ level of support for conservation processes and their participation tendencies regarding awareness, collaboration, volunteering, and adaptive reuse.	D1	Viewing conservation as a priority issue	[52,54,55]
			D2	Support for public investment in conservation
			D3	Support for local community participation in conservation processes
			D4	Support for collaboration among public institutions, universities, and civil society
			D5	Willingness to participate in awareness-raising activities
			D6	Support for promotional campaigns and events
			D7	Willingness to take part in voluntary or community support processes
			D8	Support for making the structures more visible and accessible in a controlled manner
			D9	Positive attitude toward assigning new cultural functions within the framework of appropriate conservation principles
			D10	Support for conserving the structures in relation to their original functions
E	Governance, promotion, and future-oriented perceptions	Measures participants’ evaluations regarding the adequacy of current promotion, information tools, institutional collaboration, risk perception, and UNESCO status.	E1	Perception of the adequacy of the current level of promotion	[44,48,50,52,56]
			E2	Adequacy of digital and physical information tools
			E3	Risk perception related to climate change
			E4	Risk perception related to changes in water resources
			E5	Perception of the level of collaboration between public institutions and local communities
			E6	Perception that permanent inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List would contribute to conservation
			E7	Perception that strengthening UNESCO status would contribute to cultural tourism

. The measurement structure presented in Table 2 therefore begins with Section B and continues through Sections C, D, and E, which correspond to the four main analytical dimensions of the study. The dimensions of the study and their sub-indicators are presented in Table 2.

3.4. Sample, Data Collection Process and Data Analysis

In this study, sample size adequacy was evaluated according to two criteria. First, the conventional sample size formula for estimating a population proportion was used. Under a 95% confidence level, a margin of error of ±5%, and the assumption of maximum variability (p = 0.50), the following formula was applied [57]:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{z^2\ast p\left(1-p\right)}{e^2}}$$

where n denotes the minimum required sample size, z is the z-value corresponding to the selected confidence level, p is the estimated population proportion, and e is the accepted margin of error. In the present study, the values z = 1.96, p = 0.50 and e = 0.05 were used. Accordingly, the sample size was calculated as follows [57]:

$$n={\displaystyle \frac{{1.96}^2\ast 0.50\ast \left(1-0.50\right)}{{0.05}^2}}=384.16$$

This value was rounded up, and the minimum required sample size was set at 385 participants. Second, the psychometric adequacy of the questionnaire was evaluated. For this purpose, only the 30 Likert-type items included in the four main dimensions were considered, while demographic and open-ended items were excluded from this calculation. Based on the widely recommended respondent-to-item ratio of 5–10 participants per item in scale development and validation studies, a more conservative 10:1 ratio was adopted [58,59]. Accordingly, psychometric adequacy was estimated as follows:

$$n=k\ast r$$

where k represents the number of items included in the psychometric analyses and r represents the number of respondents per item. In this study, k = 30 and r = 10. Thus:

$$n=30\ast 10=300$$

Accordingly, the minimum sample size was determined as 385 participants based on the conventional survey formula and 300 participants based on the psychometric adequacy criterion. At the end of the data collection process, 406 valid and complete questionnaires were obtained. Therefore, the achieved sample size exceeded both the conventional minimum threshold and the psychometric adequacy threshold and was considered sufficient for the purposes of this study [57,58,59].

The data collection process was carried out through both online and face-to-face administration. The study followed a non-probability sampling approach based on voluntary participation and practical accessibility. In the online phase, the questionnaire was distributed digitally through commonly used communication and social media channels targeting individuals residing in Gaziantep or familiar with the city. In the face-to-face phase, the same questionnaire was administered directly by the researchers to participants in Gaziantep. Accordingly, the final sample mainly reflects participants connected to the Gaziantep context, although it was not designed as a statistically representative sample of the entire Gaziantep population. The findings are therefore most directly relevant to the Gaziantep context and should be interpreted within this scope. In both modes, participation was voluntary, and participants were informed about the aim of the study, the anonymous nature of the questionnaire, and their right to decline or discontinue participation before completing the survey. Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the dataset. Incomplete, inconsistent, or otherwise unusable forms were excluded from the analysis; therefore, only complete cases were included in the final dataset and no additional missing-value imputation procedure was applied. The quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). In the data analysis stage, descriptive statistics were first used to identify the general profile of the participants and the basic tendencies in the dataset. Accordingly, frequency and percentage distributions were calculated for the demographic and control variables, while means and standard deviations were computed for the Likert-type items. Reliability analysis was then conducted to assess the internal consistency of the scale, using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. To examine the construct validity and dimensional structure of the questionnaire, the suitability of the dataset for factor analysis was first assessed using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Following these preliminary tests, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on the 30 Likert-type items representing the four main dimensions of the study. Principal axis factoring was used as the extraction method, and varimax rotation was applied to facilitate interpretability. In line with the theoretically defined structure of the instrument, the factor solution was examined on the basis of a four-factor structure. The factor solution was evaluated on the basis of eigenvalues greater than 1.00, the proportion of variance explained, and the interpretability of the factor structure in relation to the theoretical framework of the study. The analysis focused on factor loadings, total variance explained, and the overall interpretability of the factor pattern in relation to the conceptual framework of the study.

Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationships among the main dimensions. To further examine the relationships among the main dimensions, a multiple regression analysis was also conducted, with conservation support/participation intention treated as the dependent variable and heritage awareness and perceived value as predictor variables. In addition, where relevant, group comparisons were performed according to variables such as UNESCO awareness, visit frequency, and professional background. In addition, responses to the open-ended questions were examined thematically and used to support the quantitative findings.

4. Results

4.1. Participant Profile

The final dataset consisted of 406 valid questionnaires. The participant profile presented in

Table 3. Participant profile (n = 406).

Variable	Category	n	%
Gender	Female	224	55.2
	Male	182	44.8
Age group	18–24	40	9.9
	25–34	78	19.2
	35–44	112	27.6
	45–54	120	29.6
	55 and above	56	13.8
Education	Primary education	34	8.4
	High school	58	14.3
	Associate degree	36	8.9
	Bachelor’s degree	176	43.3
	Graduate degree	102	25.1
Occupation/employment status	Student	38	9.4
	Public sector employee	145	35.7
	Private sector employee	85	20.9
	Self-employed	39	9.6
	Retired	28	6.9
	Unemployed	50	12.3
	Other	21	5.2
Professional background related to heritage/architecture/conservation	Yes	84	20.7
	Partly	47	11.6
	No	275	67.7
Length of residence in Gaziantep	Less than 1 year	38	9.4
	1–5 years	28	6.9
	6–15 years	49	12.1
	16–25 years	67	16.5
	26 years and above	224	55.2
Visit frequency	Never	114	28.1
	Once	87	21.4
	2–3 times	128	31.5
	4 times or more	77	19.0
UNESCO awareness	Yes	183	45.1
	No	223	54.9

is based on the demographic and control variables collected in Section A of the questionnaire. As shown in Table 3, 55.2% (n = 224) of the participants were female and 44.8% (n = 182) were male. The largest age group was 45–54 years (29.6%, n = 120), followed by 35–44 years (27.6%, n = 112) and 25–34 years (19.2%, n = 78). In terms of educational attainment, 43.3% (n = 176) held a bachelor’s degree and 25.1% (n = 102) held a graduate degree. Regarding occupation, the largest group consisted of public sector employees (35.7%, n = 145), followed by private sector employees (20.9%, n = 85).

As also presented in Table 3, 67.7% (n = 275) stated that their profession or area of expertise was not related to cultural heritage, architecture, conservation, planning, art history, archaeology, museology, or related fields, while 20.7% (n = 84) answered “yes” and 11.6% (n = 47) answered “partly.” A considerable proportion of the participants had long-term residence in Gaziantep, with 55.2% (n = 224) reporting 26 years or more. In terms of visit frequency, the largest group reported visiting kastels and livas 2–3 times (31.5%, n = 128), followed by those who had never visited (28.1%, n = 114). Finally, 45.1% (n = 183) stated that they were aware of the UNESCO Tentative List status of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas, whereas 54.9% (n = 223) were not.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Results

The internal consistency of the four dimensions was found to be acceptable to very high. As shown in

Table 4. Reliability and validity results.

Dimension	Number of Items	Mean	SD	Cronbach’s Alpha
Heritage Awareness	6	4.03	0.76	0.874
Perceived Value	7	4.29	0.62	0.924
Conservation Support/ Participation Intention	10	4.17	0.60	0.919
Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions	7	3.42	0.60	0.724

, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.874 for Heritage Awareness, 0.924 for Perceived Value, 0.919 for Conservation Support/Participation Intention, and 0.724 for Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions. These results indicate strong reliability for the first three dimensions and acceptable internal consistency for the fourth dimension.

The suitability of the dataset for factor analysis was confirmed by both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The KMO value was 0.918, indicating excellent sampling adequacy, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant, χ²(435) = 8506.84, p < 0.001, demonstrating that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. An exploratory factor analysis was then conducted on the 30 Likert-type items using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation. In line with the theoretically defined structure of the questionnaire, a four-factor solution was examined. The first four factors explained 56.3% of the total variance (

Table 5. Factorability statistics.

Statistic	Value
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)	0.918
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, χ2	8506.84
df	435
p	<0.001
Total variance explained by four factors	56.3%

). Overall, the factor pattern broadly supported the proposed four-dimensional structure of the instrument, although several items showed moderate cross-loadings. Nevertheless, the overall solution was considered conceptually interpretable and consistent with the theoretical framework of the study. The rotated factor loadings are presented in

Table 6. Rotated factor loadings for the 30 Likert-type items.

Item Code	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Primary Loading
B1	0.073	0.099	0.700	−0.216	0.700
B2	0.186	0.011	0.777	−0.202	0.777
B3	0.101	0.174	0.741	−0.197	0.741
B4	0.405	0.022	0.679	−0.078	0.679
B5	0.497	−0.073	0.548	−0.130	0.548
B6	0.520	−0.072	0.561	−0.108	0.561
C1	0.673	−0.061	0.275	−0.363	0.673
C2	0.628	0.027	0.267	−0.358	0.628
C3	0.699	−0.125	0.293	−0.282	0.699
C4	0.677	0.032	0.142	−0.336	0.677
C5	0.625	−0.033	0.179	−0.329	0.625
C6	0.686	0.011	0.195	−0.343	0.686
C7	0.631	−0.034	0.148	−0.379	0.631
D1	0.415	−0.086	0.172	−0.618	0.618
D2	0.444	−0.097	0.181	−0.634	0.634
D3	0.405	−0.041	0.108	−0.621	0.621
D4	0.520	−0.099	0.130	−0.535	0.535
D5	0.194	0.087	0.162	−0.801	0.801
D6	0.330	0.007	0.156	−0.734	0.734
D7	0.109	0.082	0.143	−0.771	0.771
D8	0.459	−0.066	0.202	−0.571	0.571
D9	0.345	0.086	0.023	−0.469	0.469
D10	0.473	−0.080	0.189	−0.470	0.473
E1	−0.070	0.898	0.042	−0.007	0.898
E2	−0.047	0.903	0.052	−0.007	0.903
E3	0.247	0.297	0.225	−0.081	0.297
E4	0.265	0.267	0.284	−0.019	0.284
E5	0.037	0.646	0.006	0.028	0.646
E6	0.489	0.075	0.109	−0.248	0.489
E7	0.560	0.051	0.133	−0.246	0.560

Note. Extraction method: principal axis factoring. Rotation method: varimax. Loadings ≥ 0.40 may be considered substantively meaningful for interpretation.

.

4.3. Descriptive Findings on Heritage Awareness

The Heritage Awareness dimension yielded a relatively high overall mean score (M = 4.03, SD = 0.76), indicating that participants generally demonstrated a favorable level of awareness regarding kastels and livas. As presented in

Table 7. Descriptive findings on Heritage Awareness.

Item Code	Assessment Item	Mean	SD
B1	Familiarity with kastels and livas	3.65	1.12
B2	Knowledge of water supply/use functions	4.03	1.05
B3	Knowledge of social functions	3.72	1.12
B4	Part of Gaziantep’s cultural heritage	4.24	0.86
B5	Within underground water heritage	4.23	0.83
B6	Importance for urban history and life culture	4.34	0.73

, the highest mean score in this dimension was observed for B6, which concerned the importance of underground water heritage in understanding urban history and life culture (M = 4.34, SD = 0.73). This was followed by B4, evaluating kastels and livas as part of Gaziantep’s cultural heritage (M = 4.24, SD = 0.86), and B5, viewing them within the scope of underground water heritage (M = 4.23, SD = 0.83).

By contrast, comparatively lower mean values were observed for B1, familiarity with what kastels and livas are (M = 3.65, SD = 1.12), and B3, knowledge that these structures also had social functions (M = 3.72, SD = 1.12) (Table 7). These findings suggest that participants largely recognized the cultural and historical significance of kastels and livas, while their more specific functional knowledge was comparatively less developed.

4.4. Descriptive Findings on Perceived Value

The Perceived Value dimension had the highest overall mean among the four dimensions (M = 4.29, SD = 0.62), indicating that participants attributed strong value to kastels and livas across historical, cultural, educational, and sustainability-related aspects. As shown in

Table 8. Descriptive findings on Perceived Value.

Item Code	Assessment Item	Mean	SD
C1	Historical value	4.31	0.72
C2	Cultural identity value	4.21	0.79
C3	Value for intergenerational transmission	4.42	0.70
C4	Educational and awareness-raising potential	4.22	0.79
C5	Value for sustainable water culture	4.35	0.69
C6	Urban memory and sense of belonging	4.26	0.78
C7	Potential for national/international recognition	4.28	0.74

, the highest item mean was recorded for C3, which referred to the need to transmit these heritage assets to future generations (M = 4.42, SD = 0.70). This was followed by C5, value in terms of sustainable water culture (M = 4.35, SD = 0.69), and C1, perception of historical value (M = 4.31, SD = 0.72).

All items in this dimension had mean scores above 4.20, including C2 cultural identity value (M = 4.21, SD = 0.79), C4 educational and awareness-raising potential (M = 4.22, SD = 0.79), C6 value in terms of urban memory and sense of belonging (M = 4.26, SD = 0.78), and C7 contribution to national and international recognition (M = 4.28, SD = 0.74) (Table 8). These results demonstrate a consistently strong positive valuation of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas among the respondents.

4.5. Descriptive Findings on Conservation Support and Participation Intention

The overall mean score for Conservation Support/Participation Intention was also high (M = 4.17, SD = 0.60), indicating strong support for conservation-oriented actions and generally positive participation tendencies. As presented in

Table 9. Descriptive findings on Conservation Support and Participation Intention.

Item Code	Assessment Item	Mean	SD
D1	Conservation as a priority	4.30	0.72
D2	Support for public investment	4.25	0.74
D3	Support for local community participation	4.24	0.74
D4	Support for institutional collaboration	4.37	0.70
D5	Willingness to join awareness activities	3.89	0.93
D6	Support for promotional campaigns	4.20	0.74
D7	Willingness for voluntary/community support	3.83	0.97
D8	Support for controlled visibility/accessibility	4.28	0.68
D9	Support for new cultural functions	4.09	0.91
D10	Support for conservation linked to original functions	4.28	0.70

, the highest item mean was found for D4, support for collaboration among public institutions, universities, and civil society (M = 4.37, SD = 0.70). This was followed by D1, viewing conservation as a priority issue (M = 4.30, SD = 0.72), D8, support for making the structures more visible and accessible in a controlled manner (M = 4.28, SD = 0.68), and D10, support for conserving the structures in relation to their original functions (M = 4.28, SD = 0.70).

Relatively lower means were observed for D7, willingness to take part in voluntary or community support processes (M = 3.83, SD = 0.97), and D5, willingness to participate in awareness-raising activities (M = 3.89, SD = 0.93) (Table 9). Although these values still indicate a generally positive tendency, they suggest that respondents expressed stronger normative support for conservation than direct personal readiness for active participation. The item concerning assigning new cultural functions within appropriate conservation principles (D9) also showed a positive but comparatively more cautious response pattern (M = 4.09, SD = 0.91).

4.6. Findings on Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions

Compared with the previous dimensions, Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions had the lowest overall mean (M = 3.42, SD = 0.60), revealing a more mixed evaluation pattern. As shown in

Table 10. Findings on Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions.

Item Code	Assessment Item	Mean	SD
E1	Adequacy of current promotion	2.53	1.14
E2	Adequacy of digital/physical information tools	2.58	1.15
E3	Risk related to climate change	3.73	0.95
E4	Risk related to changes in water resources	3.73	0.89
E5	Adequacy of public-local collaboration	2.92	1.08
E6	UNESCO inscription would support conservation	4.19	0.83
E7	UNESCO status would support cultural tourism	4.29	0.74

, the highest mean in this dimension was found for E7, the perception that strengthening UNESCO status would contribute to cultural tourism (M = 4.29, SD = 0.74), followed by E6, the perception that permanent inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List would contribute to conservation (M = 4.19, SD = 0.83). Risk-related items also yielded relatively high means, including E4, risk perception related to changes in water resources (M = 3.73, SD = 0.89), and E3, risk perception related to climate change (M = 3.73, SD = 0.95).

However, the evaluation of current promotion and governance conditions was considerably lower. The lowest mean was recorded for E1, adequacy of the current level of promotion (M = 2.53, SD = 1.14), followed by E2, adequacy of digital and physical information tools (M = 2.58, SD = 1.15), and E5, adequacy of collaboration between public institutions and local communities (M = 2.92, SD = 1.08) (Table 10). These results indicate that while participants recognized the future potential of UNESCO-related visibility and were aware of environmental risks, they regarded current promotion efforts and institutional collaboration as insufficient.

4.7. Relationships Among Main Dimensions and Group Comparisons

Pearson correlation analysis revealed positive and statistically significant relationships among all four main dimensions. As reported in

Table 11. Correlations among the main dimensions.

Dimension	1	2	3	4
1. Heritage Awareness	1.000
2. Perceived Value	0.571 ***	1.000
3. Conservation Support/Participation Intention	0.484 ***	0.743 ***	1.000
4. Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions	0.310 ***	0.258 ***	0.253 ***	1.000

*** p < 0.001.

, the strongest correlation was observed between Perceived Value and Conservation Support/Participation Intention (r = 0.743, p < 0.001), suggesting that stronger value attribution to kastels and livas was closely associated with higher support for conservation and stronger participation-related intentions. Heritage Awareness was moderately correlated with Perceived Value (r = 0.571, p < 0.001) and with Conservation Support/Participation Intention (r = 0.484, p < 0.001). Weaker but still significant correlations were found between Heritage Awareness and Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions (r = 0.310, p < 0.001), between Perceived Value and Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions (r = 0.258, p < 0.001), and between Conservation Support/Participation Intention and Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions (r = 0.253, p < 0.001).

Group comparisons also revealed significant differences across several control variables. As shown in

Table 12. Group comparisons by UNESCO awareness.

Dimension	Group Means	F	p
Heritage Awareness	Yes = 4.34; No = 3.78	63.64	<0.001
Perceived Value	Yes = 4.43; No = 4.18	18.15	<0.001
Conservation Support/Participation Intention	Yes = 4.31; No = 4.06	18.45	<0.001
Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions	Yes = 3.59; No = 3.28	28.75	<0.001

, participants who were already aware of the UNESCO Tentative List status of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas reported significantly higher scores in all four dimensions (Figure 6). The differences were especially pronounced in Heritage Awareness (F = 63.64, p < 0.001), but were also significant for Perceived Value (F = 18.15, p < 0.001), Conservation Support/Participation Intention (F = 18.45, p < 0.001), and Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions (F = 28.75, p < 0.001).

Visit frequency also produced significant differences. As presented in

Table 13. Group comparisons by visit frequency.

Dimension	Group Means	F	p
Heritage Awareness	Never = 3.56; Once = 3.93; 2–3 times = 4.19; 4 times or more = 4.59	40.31	<0.001
Perceived Value	Never = 4.08; Once = 4.24; 2–3 times = 4.37; 4 times or more = 4.53	9.80	<0.001
Conservation Support/Participation Intention	Never = 3.94; Once = 4.20; 2–3 times = 4.20; 4 times or more = 4.44	12.16	<0.001
Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions	Never = 3.41; Once = 3.30; 2–3 times = 3.50; 4 times or more = 3.46	2.05	0.106

, more frequent visitors reported higher scores in Heritage Awareness (F = 40.31, p < 0.001), Perceived Value (F = 9.80, p < 0.001), and Conservation Support/Participation Intention (F = 12.16, p < 0.001) (Figure 7). The highest mean scores in these three dimensions were generally observed among respondents who had visited the kastels and livas four times or more. By contrast, differences in Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions according to visit frequency were not statistically significant (F = 2.05, p = 0.106).

Finally, significant group differences were found according to professional background. As shown in

Table 14. Group comparisons by professional background.

Dimension	Group Means	F	p
Heritage Awareness	Yes = 4.49; Partly = 3.96; No = 3.91	21.75	<0.001
Perceived Value	Yes = 4.57; Partly = 4.26; No = 4.21	11.87	<0.001
Conservation Support/Participation Intention	Yes = 4.45; Partly = 4.10; No = 4.10	11.87	<0.001
Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions	Yes = 3.56; Partly = 3.36; No = 3.39	2.66	0.071

, participants whose profession or expertise was directly related to cultural heritage, architecture, conservation, planning, art history, archaeology, museology, or related fields scored significantly higher in Heritage Awareness (F = 21.75, p < 0.001), Perceived Value (F = 11.87, p < 0.001), and Conservation Support/Participation Intention (F = 11.87, p < 0.001) (Figure 8). However, the difference in Governance, Promotion, and Future-Oriented Perceptions was not statistically significant (F = 2.66, p = 0.071). Overall, these findings indicate that UNESCO awareness, visit experience, and relevant professional background are associated with more favorable perceptions of Gaziantep’s underground water heritage.

4.8. Regression Results

To provide additional evidence on the relationships among the main dimensions, a multiple regression analysis was conducted with Conservation Support/Participation Intention as the dependent variable and Heritage Awareness and Perceived Value as the independent variables. As shown in

Table 15. Multiple regression model predicting conservation support/participation intention.

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI for B
Constant	0.995	0.144	-	6.921	<0.001	[0.712, 1.277]
Heritage Awareness	0.070	0.032	0.088	2.181	0.030	[0.007, 0.133]
Perceived Value	0.675	0.039	0.693	17.151	<0.001	[0.597, 0.752]

Model statistics: R² = 0.557; Adjusted R² = 0.555; F(2, 403) = 253.70; p < 0.001. Note. Dependent variable: Conservation Support/Participation Intention. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized coefficient; CI = confidence interval.

, the overall model was statistically significant, F(2, 403) = 253.70, p < 0.001, and explained 55.7% of the variance in Conservation Support/Participation Intention (R² = 0.557; adjusted R² = 0.555). Both Heritage Awareness (B = 0.070, β = 0.088, p = 0.030, 95% CI [0.007, 0.133]) and Perceived Value (B = 0.675, β = 0.693, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.597, 0.752]) were positively associated with Conservation Support/Participation Intention. However, Perceived Value emerged as the substantially stronger predictor. These findings provide additional support for the assumption that stronger heritage recognition and, especially, stronger value attribution are associated with higher levels of conservation-oriented support and participation intention.

4.9. Thematic Findings from Open-Ended Responses

The open-ended responses provided complementary insight into participants’ views on the conservation, promotion, and long-term sustainability of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas. As summarized in

Table 16. Main themes identified from the open-ended responses.

Open-Ended Question	Number of Valid Responses	Main Themes Identified
F1. What should be the highest-priority action for the conservation of kastels and livas?	171	Public awareness and education; conservation and restoration; regular maintenance; institutional responsibility and coordination
F2. What is the most effective method for promoting kastels and livas?	175	Social media and digital platforms; educational activities; guided visits; media-based and public promotion
F3. What should be done to preserve the water-related structure of the livas system and ensure its sustainability?	150	Protection of water resources; preservation of the original system; regular maintenance; long-term sustainability

, 171 valid responses were obtained for the question on priority conservation actions, 175 valid responses for the question on the most effective promotion methods, and 150 valid responses for the question on the protection and sustainability of the water-related structure of the livas system. Overall, the responses were reviewed thematically in order to identify recurrent emphases and representative concerns.

For the question on priority conservation actions (F1), participants most frequently emphasized the need for public awareness and education, together with conservation, restoration, and regular maintenance. Institutional responsibility and stronger coordination were also recurring themes. One participant, for example, stated that “people should be informed about kastels and livas, how these systems functioned, and what they contributed to urban life; awareness should be created.” Another response emphasized the physical dimension of protection more directly: “If these structures require restoration, they should be renewed in accordance with their original character and transmitted to future generations.”

For the question on promotion methods (F2), responses pointed primarily to social media and digital platforms, followed by educational activities, guided visits, and broader public communication tools. A representative response suggested that “digital promotion through social media, websites, and short videos would be effective.” Another participant highlighted experiential interpretation by noting that “students and residents should be introduced to kastels and livas through visits and on-site explanation.”

Regarding the protection and sustainability of the livas system (F3), participants mainly stressed the importance of protecting water resources, preserving the original water-related character of the system, and ensuring regular maintenance and long-term conservation. In this respect, one participant stated that “water resources should be protected, wastewater should be kept away from the original livas line, the originality of the system should be preserved, and maintenance should be carried out periodically.” Another participant similarly emphasized functional continuity by suggesting that “even if not fully active, the system should continue to operate with at least a minimum water flow.”

Overall, these qualitative responses support the quantitative findings by reinforcing the importance of awareness-building, stronger promotion, institutional responsibility, and the environmental dimension of underground water heritage. They also suggest that participants view conservation not only as a matter of physical protection, but as a combined issue of public knowledge, functional continuity, and long-term governance.

5. Discussion

5.1. Heritage Awareness and Perceived Value in Underground Water Heritage

The findings indicate that Gaziantep’s kastels and livas are perceived not merely as remnants of a historical water infrastructure, but as meaningful components of cultural heritage whose sustainability depends on public recognition and value attribution. The relatively high scores in the heritage awareness dimension, together with the even stronger scores observed in perceived value, suggest that participants largely recognize the significance of these structures even when their more specific technical or functional knowledge remains comparatively uneven. This pattern is consistent with previous studies showing that heritage awareness is not limited to factual knowledge alone, but is shaped by broader processes of recognition, interpretation, and cultural valuation [31,39,40]. In this respect, the present findings support the argument that awareness develops not only through direct knowledge of a heritage asset’s original use, but also through its perceived importance within collective memory, local identity, and urban history.

The consistently high scores recorded across all items in the perceived value dimension further reinforce this interpretation. Participants strongly agreed that kastels and livas possess historical value, educational potential, intergenerational significance, and importance in relation to sustainable water culture. This finding is particularly meaningful because previous research has emphasized that heritage value is socially constructed rather than inherent, and that public support for conservation depends to a large extent on the meanings that individuals and communities attribute to heritage assets [39,41]. In the present study, the fact that intergenerational transmission and sustainable water culture were among the most strongly endorsed items suggests that kastels and livas are not only viewed as archaeological or historical structures, but also as cultural assets capable of carrying environmental and civic meaning into the future. This broader value framework is especially important in the case of underground water heritage, where the material system itself is closely tied to historical knowledge, resource consciousness, and urban continuity.

Beyond confirming positive relationships among awareness, perceived value, and conservation-oriented support, the Gaziantep case suggests a more specific theoretical implication for underground water heritage. Unlike many more visible heritage typologies, kastels and livas are partly hidden, infrastructural, and historically embedded in everyday water practices rather than monumental visibility alone. In such contexts, awareness may depend less on simple visual recognition and more on interpretive knowledge, local memory, and understanding of functional significance. This helps explain why perceived value emerges as a particularly strong mechanism linking recognition to conservation-oriented attitudes. Thus, the study contributes to heritage sustainability research by indicating that, in underground water heritage contexts, value formation may rely especially on making invisible or less accessible heritage socially intelligible through interpretation, communication, and public awareness.

5.2. From Perceived Value to Conservation Support and Participation Intention

One of the most important outcomes of the study is the strong positive relationship between perceived value and conservation support/participation intention. This result suggests that value attribution functions as one of the main social mechanisms through which support for heritage conservation is generated. The strongest correlation in the study was observed between these two dimensions, indicating that participants who attributed higher historical, cultural, and social value to kastels and livas were also more likely to support their conservation and to express positive attitudes toward participation-related actions. This finding closely aligns with earlier studies demonstrating that perceived value is a strong predictor of public support for heritage protection, conservation funding, and participatory engagement [54,55]. It also aligns with SDG 11.4, as it suggests that effective heritage safeguarding depends not only on formal protection, but also on the internalization of heritage value by local communities. This interpretation is also reinforced by the regression results. When conservation support/participation intention was modeled as the dependent variable, both heritage awareness and perceived value were positively associated with it, while perceived value emerged as the substantially stronger predictor. This suggests that awareness contributes to conservation-oriented support not only directly, but also through the social and symbolic meanings attributed to the heritage asset. In other words, recognizing kastels and livas as important heritage structures appears to matter, but the extent to which individuals perceive them as historically, culturally, and socially valuable plays a more decisive role in shaping support for conservation and participation-related intentions. This result adds further analytical support to the view that value attribution functions as a key mechanism linking heritage recognition to conservation-oriented attitudes. A similar pattern has also been noted in user-oriented evaluation studies in the built environment, where users’ perceptions, satisfaction, and value-based judgments were found to play a central role in shaping sustainability-related attitudes and evaluative outcomes [55,60,61,62]. In other words, the present results confirm that conservation-oriented behavior is not simply a product of formal recognition or institutional framing; it is also deeply rooted in how communities interpret the significance of heritage in their own social and cultural context. Studies on Persian Qanats have similarly emphasized that underground water heritage can foster conservation-oriented behavior only when local communities and visitors attribute broader cultural and social meaning to these systems, rather than viewing them solely as technical relics [49]. More broadly, research on heritage participation has shown that community engagement depends not only on recognition, but also on opportunity structures, interpretive access, and locally meaningful value attribution [53,54]. In this respect, the Gaziantep case aligns with international findings suggesting that perceived value functions as a key mechanism linking heritage recognition to conservation-oriented support.

At the same time, the findings reveal a meaningful distinction between normative support for conservation and direct personal willingness to participate. Participants expressed strong support for conservation as a priority issue, for public investment, for institutional collaboration, and for protecting the structures in relation to their original functions. However, willingness to participate personally in awareness-raising activities or voluntary support processes remained somewhat lower. This pattern is significant because it reflects a gap frequently identified in the literature: positive attitudes toward heritage do not automatically translate into active participation unless communities are provided with appropriate channels, incentives, and participatory frameworks [31,52,54]. In the context of Gaziantep, this suggests that the social basis for conservation is already present at the level of principle, but that more effective mechanisms are needed to convert this supportive disposition into more active and sustained forms of engagement. Thus, the issue is less one of public indifference than one of participatory opportunity and institutional mediation. This difference suggests that support for conservation may operate at two related but distinct levels. At the first level, participants may express strong normative approval for the protection of kastels and livas as valuable heritage assets. At the second level, however, participation requires more concrete forms of engagement, such as time, motivation, access to information, institutional channels, and opportunities for involvement. In this respect, the lower scores for active participation-related items do not necessarily indicate indifference; rather, they may reflect the difference between endorsing conservation as a principle and engaging in it as a practice. This interpretation is also consistent with the governance-related findings of the study, which point to relatively weaker evaluations of current promotion, information tools, and institutional collaboration.

5.3. Governance, Promotion, and the Role of UNESCO Awareness

Compared with the other three dimensions, governance, promotion, and future-oriented perceptions received the lowest mean scores, especially in relation to the adequacy of current promotion, information tools, and collaboration between public institutions and local communities. At the same time, participants strongly agreed that UNESCO inscription would contribute positively to both conservation and cultural tourism. This combination is highly revealing. It indicates that respondents clearly distinguish between the current weakness of heritage communication and governance practices and the future potential of formal recognition and stronger visibility. Previous studies have similarly shown that heritage designation, including UNESCO recognition, may strengthen local pride, symbolic legitimacy, and expectations concerning tourism and conservation; however, such outcomes do not emerge automatically without effective governance, interpretation strategies, and community-oriented planning [44,48,50]. The current findings therefore imply that Gaziantep’s kastels and livas possess recognized heritage potential, but that this potential remains only partially activated under existing conditions of promotion and coordination.

The role of UNESCO awareness is especially important in this regard. Participants who were already aware of the UNESCO Tentative List status of kastels and livas scored significantly higher across all four dimensions. This suggests that UNESCO-related knowledge functions not only as a marker of information, but also as a broader indicator of interpretive engagement. Participants who are already aware of the international heritage status of these structures appear more likely to recognize their significance, attribute value to them, support conservation, and evaluate their future potential more positively. Such a pattern is compatible with earlier findings indicating that heritage interpretation and recognition frameworks shape how communities understand and respond to heritage assets [40,48,52]. In the present case, UNESCO awareness appears to operate as a mediating factor between heritage visibility and conservation-oriented perception. This also strengthens the argument that better promotion and communication should be considered not as secondary additions to conservation, but as central components of sustainable heritage governance.

The governance-related findings are likewise in line with international discussions on water heritage and heritage management. Nováková (2024) emphasizes that water structures should be understood not only as historical infrastructure, but also as heritage systems requiring innovative and sustainable forms of management and interpretation [45]. In parallel, participatory heritage management studies indicate that conservation becomes more effective when communication, institutional cooperation, and public participation are treated as integral components of governance rather than secondary support mechanisms [53,54]. The relatively weaker evaluations observed in the present study for promotion, information tools, and institutional collaboration therefore point to a governance gap that is also recognized in the wider international literature. In this respect, the findings are also relevant to SDG 16, particularly in terms of inclusive governance, institutional coordination, and participatory decision-making in heritage management. Unlike the first three dimensions, which correspond more directly to the awareness-value-support pathway, this dimension captures participants’ broader evaluations of the institutional and interpretive environment in which heritage conservation is situated.

A possible explanation for these relatively lower evaluations is that governance- and promotion-related perceptions depend less on participants’ personal appreciation of the heritage asset itself and more on their visible experience of institutional performance. In other words, participants may strongly value kastels and livas as heritage structures, while at the same time perceiving current promotion, information tools, and institutional coordination as insufficient in practice. This may be particularly relevant for underground water heritage, where physical invisibility, limited accessibility, and the absence of strong interpretive tools can make institutional shortcomings more noticeable. Thus, the lower scores in this dimension may reflect not a lack of public interest, but rather a perceived gap between heritage value and the current effectiveness of communication, interpretation, and governance practices.

5.4. Implications for the Sustainable Management of Gaziantep’s Kastels and Livas

Taken together, the findings suggest that the sustainability of Gaziantep’s underground water heritage cannot be reduced to the physical preservation of masonry, tunnels, or subterranean spaces alone. Instead, sustainable management depends on a broader social framework composed of heritage awareness, perceived value, conservation support, participatory potential, and interpretive capacity. This conclusion is strongly in line with participatory conservation research, which emphasizes that long-term heritage sustainability requires socially grounded management models rather than purely top-down preservation approaches [52,54]. In the case of Gaziantep, the high levels of value attribution and the generally strong support for conservation indicate that a substantial social basis already exists. This broader interpretation is also consistent with studies emphasizing that water culture and water structures have played a formative role in the historical development and cultural identity of Gaziantep [63]. These findings position Gaziantep’s kastels and livas within a wider international discussion on the sustainability of water heritage. Similar to studies on qanat-related and participatory heritage contexts, the present results suggest that long-term conservation depends not only on physical protection, but also on public meaning-making, institutional coordination, and opportunities for participation [45,49,54]. However, the comparatively low ratings for current promotion and collaboration also show that this social potential has not yet been translated into a sufficiently strong governance framework. Thus, future management strategies should focus not only on physical protection, but also on interpretive access, institutional coordination, and sustained community engagement.

The findings also carry an important environmental sustainability implication. Participants showed relatively strong concern regarding climate change and changes in water resources, suggesting that kastels and livas are perceived not only as historical assets, but also as vulnerable components of a water-related heritage system. This is particularly important because recent scholarship on water heritage increasingly emphasizes the need to understand such systems in relation to environmental change, climate risk, and the sustainable use of water-related cultural resources [45,56]. From this perspective, the sustainability of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas should be conceptualized as a combined cultural, social, and environmental challenge. Their long-term conservation requires not only architectural documentation and physical maintenance, but also stronger public interpretation, water-conscious heritage policies, and governance structures capable of linking heritage management with environmental sensitivity. In this sense, underground water heritage offers a particularly valuable lens through which sustainability can be understood as the intersection of infrastructure, memory, identity, and ecological vulnerability. This environmental dimension also connects the study to SDG 6, as kastels and livas reflect historical water knowledge while highlighting the need for water-conscious conservation under changing environmental conditions.

Overall, the study shows that Gaziantep’s kastels and livas are socially recognized as valuable heritage assets and that their conservation enjoys substantial public support. However, this support must be strengthened through more visible promotion, better information tools, and more inclusive collaboration between institutions and local communities. The results therefore suggest that socially grounded sustainable heritage management in Gaziantep should prioritize at least four interconnected areas: enhancing public awareness through interpretation and communication, reinforcing the values associated with underground water heritage, expanding participatory opportunities, and integrating environmental risk awareness into conservation policy. By doing so, kastels and livas may be sustained not only as remnants of a historic infrastructure, but as actively recognized and publicly supported components of Gaziantep’s cultural future.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the sustainability of Gaziantep’s kastels and livas as elements of underground water heritage through the dimensions of heritage awareness, perceived value, conservation support/participation intention, and governance-, promotion-, and future-oriented perceptions. The findings show that these structures are widely recognized by participants as valuable components of Gaziantep’s cultural heritage and that they are associated with strong historical, cultural, educational, and intergenerational value. The results further indicate that higher perceived value is closely linked to stronger support for conservation and participation-oriented attitudes.

At the same time, the study revealed an important contrast between the strong symbolic and social value attributed to kastels and livas and the relatively low evaluation of current promotion, information tools, and institutional collaboration. This suggests that the long-term sustainability of underground water heritage depends not only on the physical preservation of the structures themselves, but also on more effective interpretation, stronger governance mechanisms, and broader public engagement. In particular, the positive associations of UNESCO awareness, visit experience, and relevant professional background with more favorable perceptions underline the importance of visibility, knowledge, and experiential contact in shaping conservation-oriented attitudes.

Overall, the study demonstrates that the sustainability of Gaziantep’s underground water heritage should be addressed as a combined cultural, social, and environmental issue. In this respect, future strategies should prioritize public awareness, participatory conservation approaches, improved promotion and interpretation tools, and stronger collaboration among local authorities, universities, and civil society. By doing so, kastels and livas may be sustained not only as remnants of a historic water infrastructure, but also as actively recognized and socially supported heritage assets within the contemporary urban context.

Limitations and Future Research

While the study provides a useful empirical perspective on the sustainability of Gaziantep’s underground water heritage, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the research was based on a cross-sectional design and therefore reflects participants’ perceptions at a particular point in time. For this reason, the findings should be interpreted as indicating associations and general tendencies rather than temporal change or causal direction. Second, the study relied on self-reported data. As with survey-based heritage perception research more broadly, responses may have been influenced by social desirability, individual interpretation, or differences in prior familiarity with the subject. In addition, the psychometric evaluation of the instrument was based on exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency measures. Although these procedures supported the overall interpretability of the scale, confirmatory factor analysis was not conducted, and convergent and discriminant validity were not examined separately. Furthermore, because all measures were collected through a single self-report instrument, the possibility of common method bias should also be acknowledged. Third, although the achieved sample size was sufficient for the planned analyses, the study was conducted within the specific context of Gaziantep and the sample was not designed to represent all possible social groups proportionally. Therefore, some degree of sampling bias cannot be ruled out, and the findings should be generalized with caution beyond the local context. In addition, the survey addressed kastels and livas as a broader underground water heritage system rather than focusing on each kastel individually. This approach was appropriate for identifying general patterns of heritage awareness, perceived value, and conservation-related attitudes; however, it may have obscured site-specific differences in experience, interpretation, and perceived significance. Future research may build on this framework by conducting comparative studies in different water-heritage contexts, using more in-depth qualitative methods, and examining how site-specific experiences, governance practices, and interpretive strategies influence conservation-oriented perceptions over time. Longitudinal and mixed-method designs may also help clarify how awareness, value attribution, and participation intentions evolve under changing environmental, institutional, and cultural conditions. Future research may also explore the adaptive reuse potential of newly identified kastels within the framework of appropriate conservation principles.