Tracing the Values of Fading Rural Architectural Heritage: The Case of Cold-Water Baths in Western Anatolia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As a result of this review, it can be stated that the selected area is an original case but a minor revision of the manuscript should be carried out by the authors before it could be reconsidered for publication in Heritage.

• “Tracing Values of Fading Architectural Heritage: The Case of Cold-Water Baths in Western Anatolia” title should be changed into “…..Rural Architectural Heritage…..”.
• In page 2, the authors should define the word …“hold various values that””… for the description of significance especially for what does it consist of.
• In the section methodology the authors declared the valuation of the heritage values but still didn’t declared what they are.
• In the end of study the authors mentioned the values combined with the baths but these must be declared in the introduction and methodology parts

 

I believe that correction of these observations would be appropriate for the publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: “Tracing Values of Fading Architectural Heritage: The Case of Cold-Water Baths in Western Anatolia” title should be changed into “…..Rural Architectural Heritage…..”.

Respond 1: Thank you for this clear suggestion. We revised the title.

Comment 2:  In page 2, the authors should define the word …“hold various values that””… for the description of significance especially for what does it consist of.

Respond 2: Thank you for suggesting that we define the phrase “hold various values that” at its first appearance. Because the subsequent sections (Sections 3 and 4, along with Table 3) offer a complete typology and discussion of these values, we felt that inserting an additional definition on page 2 would create redundancy and interrupt the introductory flow. We hope you will understand and accept this decision.

Comment 3:  In the section methodology the authors declared the valuation of the heritage values but still didn’t declared what they are.

Respond 3: Thank you for noting the need to state explicitly which values are being assessed. In the revised manuscript, we have improved the value assessment of the methodology section (p. 5, pgr. 6, lines 148–159).

Comment 4: In the end of study the authors mentioned the values combined with the baths but these must be declared in the introduction and methodology parts.

Respond 4: Thank you for recommending that the baths’ value categories be stated earlier in the paper. We have incorporated your suggestion by expanding the methodology (p. 5, pgr. 6, lines 148–159) to define the assessed values, thereby meeting the need for early clarification without duplicating material. Because Sections 3 and 4—with Table 3—already present a complete typology and discussion, adding the same definitions to the introduction would have introduced redundancy and disrupted the introductory flow. We hope this balanced solution addresses your concern and maintains narrative coherence.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am sending my Review suggestions in the attached PDF.

I wish to praise the choice of the topic.

Best wishes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: In chapters 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, there is a lack of dating of buildings: when they were erected, when they were abandoned? It is understandable that accurate and precise data does not exist, but the only way for us as readers to indirectly conclude anything about their age is the age of the interviewees who remember the functioning of these objects, and some of their stories. However, it is necessary to give at least an approximate dating of the objects and basic data, according to the conclusion of the authors of the paper. In the methodology, it is written that the work was also based on archival research, but that part of the research is not presented in this work. I think you should have provided basic, accessible data, or more clearly said that it doesn't exist, if that's the case. Are any of the baths officially recognised by the state in any way as important for salvage?

Respond 1: Thank you for highlighting this inconsistency. After double-checking our sources, we confirmed that there are no archive or cadastral documents recording the construction or disuse dates of Hamamlıkuyu, Üçkuyular or Zincirlikuyu. We have therefore removed “archival research” from the methodology, and the section now refers only to a literature review ( p. 4, lines 134). A description has been inserted to state clearly that reliable dates could not be located (p. 5, pgr. 1, lines 168-170). We consulted the Turkish National Cultural Heritage Inventory and municipal conservation lists; none of the three baths is currently listed or protected. This information has been added to the same paragraph (p. 5, pgr. 1, lines 168-170).

Comment 2: The word hammam is mentioned only once - on page 10. Why is that the case? What is the connection between the hammam and the name Hamamlıkuyu Bath?

Respond 2:  Thank you for noting this ambiguity. We have replaced the earlier wording to clarify that, although hamam can refer to various kinds of hamams, in our case it designates the small cold-water structures analysed in the paper (p. 13, pgr. 1, lines 339). Also, we explain how local toponyms—Hamamlıkuyu, Üçkuyular and Zincirlikuyu—arise from pairing hammam (meaning hamam in Turkish), number (in this case, three means üç in Turkish) or well (meaning kuyu in Turkish) with the defining water feature of each site (p. 5, pgr. 2, lines 174-177). This addition removes any ambiguity about terminology and firmly links the bath names to their environmental setting.

Comment 3: Page 11. I don't understand the reference to "a great plane tree". Where was it? The same question applies to the "coffee shop"

Respond 3: Thank you for pointing out this omission. The coffee-house and masjid ruins are indicated in Figure 5, but the great plane tree was not labelled, and the text did not explicitly direct the reader to the image. We have therefore added a clear label for the plane tree in Figure 5 (p. 9, lines 237) and inserted an in-text reference to Figure 5 when describing these features in Section 3.2.2 (p. 14, pgr. 3, lines 365). These changes make the location of the tree and the coffee-house evident and prevent further confusion.

Comment 4: Section 3.2.2. Two baths are described in the same text - what is their spatial relationship?

Respond 4: Thank you for this suggestion. We have inserted the part in the paper to state explicitly that the two baths stand only about 300 m from each other on the outskirts of Ulamış and share the same user community (p. 14, pgr. 1, lines 355-357). This proximity explains why their oral histories are analysed in a single subsection.

Comment 5: I think it is difficult to clearly define which of the listed values belong to explicit and which to implicit values, and I respect the division of the authors, who performed the analysis and field work, although some other authors may classify certain values differently within the framework of two groups. However, please, specify a little more clearly, actually list the overall values, inherent and intrinsic values that are shown in Figure 8 through mutual connections, before giving the figure.

Respond 5: Thank you for highlighting the need for clarification. We have created Table 3. Classification of Heritage Values for Cold-Water Baths, which now presents all values (p. 15, lines 434).

Comment 6: Page 14. Missing bullet before the word Representativeness. In picture 8, a typo in the same word.

Respond 6: Thank you for this clear suggestion. We added the bullet (p. 17, lines 506) and arranged the Figure 8 (p. 17, lines 499).

Comment 7: Pages 14 and 15. Please think of a better explanation of the values: Rarity and Singularity. I think that the difference between those two values is not highlighted clearly enough. Even Rarity is hard to separate from Authenticity, while Singularity is hard to separate from Representativeness. I think that before stating the values, it is necessary to briefly explain what these values generally represent for the authors.

Respond 7: Thank you for highlighting the need to better distinguish these value categories. We have inserted a short explanatory paragraph immediately before the value statements in the manuscript (p. 17, pgr. 1, lines 500-505). Subsequent definitions of rarity and singularity have been arranged to reflect this quantitative-versus-qualitative distinction (p. 18, lines 522 and 527). We believe these revisions clarify the conceptual boundaries between the two values.

Comment 8: In conclusion, give personal suggestions as to what practical actions are suggested for preserving the material remains of buildings, how to preserve the value of buildings in modern society, and how they can be practically integrated into today’s community. Something was given earlier in the text, in the description of the value of Potentiality, but it is necessary to give it more clearly in the conclusion.

Respond 8: Thank you for requesting more explicit, practice-oriented recommendations. We have expanded the Conclusion (p. 19, pgr. 1, lines 572-575; pgr. 2, lines 576,577; 581-585; pgr. 5, lines 609-617; pgr. 6, lines 612-627; p. 20, pgr. 7, lines 629-632).   We believe these additions meet your request by outlining clear, attainable steps for preserving the material remains, maintaining their contemporary relevance, and embedding them within today’s community.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyses the theme of urbanization growth in the agricultural landscape focusing on the traditional cold water baths of western Anatolia that were once an integral part of the agricultural culture of the region. These are architectural examples that have characterized the agricultural landscape and agricultural life and are now threatened by the continuous growth of urbanization in peri-urban areas (especially after the pandemic and the earthquake of 2020). The increasing urbanization of rural areas reduces and impoverishes agricultural land with the risk of erasing agricultural structures that are tangible memory of culture and human life.

For this reason, the paper intends to highlight the value of the architectural structures of the three baths as a symbol of this significant change in the area under consideration, the Karaburun peninsula. The multidisciplinary methodological approach aims to highlight the role of these architectural structures, lacking the aura of a historical monument, but living testimonies of the cultural landscape of western Anatolia.

On the other hand, it is precisely the recognition of the value of places - well highlighted by research - that leads to their recognition as a testimony that must be protected and therefore preserved to contribute to the construction of the memory of the community.

The work methodology is well articulated and clearly structured. Documentation to support field analysis is essential. It is suggested, however, to broaden the reference context: the analysis of the three rural baths should report with more precision and greater references than other case studies of rural architectures or structures in the area or other baths in the wider area of western Anatolia.

The research results are particularly valuable and offer a focus on a theme that deserves to be more present in the paper. It is suggested to contextualise the research in the context of the growing focus on rural architecture and the latest sustainable management approaches to integrate rural architectural heritage with housing and tourism needs in Turkey. Finally, the results obtained from the research, extremely valuable, should be inserted into a broader critical framework to give strength to the value of the structures studied not only in the local context.

Author Response

Comment 1: The work methodology is well articulated and clearly structured. Documentation to support field analysis is essential. It is suggested, however, to broaden the reference context: the analysis of the three rural baths should report with more precision and greater references than other case studies of rural architectures or structures in the area or other baths in the wider area of western Anatolia.

Respond 1: 

Thank you for encouraging us to relate the three Karaburun baths to additional rural examples in Western Anatolia. In preparing the manuscript, we consulted regional inventories, survey reports, and academic studies from neighbouring districts; these sources record cisterns, fountains and springs, but none document a free-standing, single-chamber bath fed solely by wells and intended for itinerant field workers. In the absence of close parallels, we chose to frame the baths’ significance by contrasting them with the better-known urban hammams and Roman thermae, thereby underscoring their distinctive place within the broader spectrum of Anatolian bathing traditions (p. 2, pgr.1, line 45-55; pgr. 2, line 56-67). Should future surveys reveal comparable structures, we would gladly expand the discussion, but at present, introducing speculative comparisons would not be evidence-based. We hope this rationale clarifies our decision and addresses your valuable suggestion.

Comment 2: The research results are particularly valuable and offer a focus on a theme that deserves to be more present in the paper. It is suggested to contextualise the research in the context of the growing focus on rural architecture and the latest sustainable management approaches to integrate rural architectural heritage with housing and tourism needs in Turkey. Finally, the results obtained from the research, extremely valuable, should be inserted into a broader critical framework to give strength to the value of the structures studied not only in the local context.

Respond 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to position our findings more explicitly within current debates on rural architecture and sustainable management in Türkiye and to frame the results in a broader critical context. In the revised manuscript, we have added a concise overview of recent national initiatives (p. 19, pgr. 3, lines 586–595) and linked our findings to broader international debates on small-scale water heritage, resilient rural landscapes, and climate-responsive vernacular construction (p. 19, pgr. 4, lines 596–604), thereby showing the transferability of the analytical framework. These additions give the baths’ significance a more precise national and global dimension while preserving the local detail that underpins the research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an important and underexplored topic in architectural and heritage studies: the values of rural cold-water baths in Western Anatolia. It combines ethnographic research, oral history, spatial analysis, and value assessment to reveal the intrinsic and contextual significance of modest heritage structures. The paper is well-structured, thematically coherent, and offers a meaningful contribution to discussions on intangible heritage, rural memory, and community-centred conservation. However, while the content is conceptually rich, the article would benefit from tightening in academic style, greater theoretical framing, and deeper methodological clarity.

Introduction: This is a strong justification for the research; it addresses the neglect of modest heritage in heritage discourse. However, the author can improve the flow between paragraphs and ensure consistent tense and voice. The opening could better anchor the theoretical positioning, cite key references earlier. Also, maybe it would be good to clarify how the baths differ from hammams and Roman baths, not just physically, but socio-culturally, adding depth to the scope.

Methodology: A more precise explanation of the sampling strategy is needed. How were elders selected and approached? Try to avoid dot-point lists for methodology; could consider consolidating into a table. Also, there is a need to clarify how value typologies (explicit/implicit, intrinsic/overall) were operationalised. Did you use a known framework (e.g., Getty Conservation Institute)? Please also describe how the data were coded or analysed. Was NVivo or thematic coding used?

Results

4.1 Spatial Analysis: The architectural descriptions, while detailed, can be more concise. Consider putting technical measurements (e.g., dimensions, well distances) in a table. Also, how do spatial patterns reinforce socio-cultural meanings? Also, I recommend that the authors cross-compare the three case studies more directly.

4.2 Oral History: Can you expand the reflection on memory decay and its implications, and how does intergenerational forgetting affect conservation urgency? Provide more direct insights to give voice to community members. Also, you can use some additional literature to support how oral history contributes to memory-based conservation.

Discussion: I recommend that authors better organise the implicit and explicit values into a table or matrix. Also, please avoid redundancy; some values are mentioned in both sections (e.g., water usage, agricultural context). The theoretical analysis of “community value” and “representativeness” using sources like Laurajane Smith (2006) or ICOMOS frameworks needs to be deepened. The concept of “potentiality” (tourism potential) is underdeveloped; how can interpretation strategies be proposed?

Author Response

Comment 1: Introduction: This is a strong justification for the research; it addresses the neglect of modest heritage in heritage discourse. However, the author can improve the flow between paragraphs and ensure consistent tense and voice. The opening could better anchor the theoretical positioning, cite key references earlier. Also, maybe it would be good to clarify how the baths differ from hammams and Roman baths, not just physically, but socio-culturally, adding depth to the scope.

Respond 1: Thank you for your constructive comments. We have revised the Introduction in line with your suggestions. We inserted a new opening sentence that explicitly defines Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) and foregrounds the marginalisation of vernacular values (p. 1, pgr. 1, line 35-37). We added short linking clauses at the end of paragraphs (p. 2, pgr. 1, line 43, 44 and p. 2, pgr. 3, line 71-73) and revised verbs. A new comparative paragraph has been added to clarify how the baths differ from hammams and Roman baths socio-culturally (p. 2, pgr. 2, line 56-67). We believe these changes meet the concerns raised and significantly enhance the clarity and scholarly framing of the Introduction.

Comment 2: Methodology: A more precise explanation of the sampling strategy is needed. How were elders selected and approached? Try to avoid dot-point lists for methodology; could consider consolidating into a table. Also, there is a need to clarify how value typologies (explicit/implicit, intrinsic/overall) were operationalised. Did you use a known framework (e.g., Getty Conservation Institute)? Please also describe how the data were coded or analysed. Was NVivo or thematic coding used?

Respond 2: Thank you for these detailed and helpful suggestions. We have substantially revised the Methodology section to address every point. We now provide a step-by-step account of the purposive, stratified-snowball procedure to clarify how the elders were selected and approached. The means of first contact, and screening against residency and age benchmarks are now described (p. 4, pgr. 2, line 114-122). A table was considered; however, because each step required contextual nuance, we assessed a narrative format as clearer and more informative. A new paragraph details how explicit and implicit values were defined, linked to intrinsic value, and cross-checked against the criteria of representativeness, rarity, integrity, authenticity and potentiality (p. 5, lines 148–159). While clarifying the concept of intrinsic value, we determined that the label “overall” was redundant and have therefore removed this term throughout the manuscript to maintain terminological consistency. We specified that all interviews were transcribed and imported into NVivo. A hybrid deductive–inductive thematic coding cycle—conducted by two researchers who iteratively reconciled discrepancies—is now outlined (p. 4, pgr. 3, lines 125–132).

Comment 3: Results: 4.1 Spatial Analysis: The architectural descriptions, while detailed, can be more concise. Consider putting technical measurements (e.g., dimensions, well distances) in a table(yapacam). Also, how do spatial patterns reinforce socio-cultural meanings? Also, I recommend that the authors cross-compare the three case studies more directly.

Respond 3: Thank you for these constructive points. We have revised Section 4.1. A new synthesis paragraph now. It cross-compares the three sites and explains how spatial configurations (clustered versus isolated siting; long versus short well distances) map onto contrasting social functions—communal gathering, and private devotion (p. 11, pgr. 1, lines 254–263). All quantitative data (plan sizes, dome heights, well counts and distances) have been assembled in a new Table 1, “Architectural Characteristics of Cold-Water Baths” (p. 11, lines 264). This change streamlines the narrative and allows readers to consult measurements at a glance.

Comment 4: Results: 4.2 Oral History: Can you expand the reflection on memory decay and its implications, and how does intergenerational forgetting affect conservation urgency? Provide more direct insights to give voice to community members. Also, you can use some additional literature to support how oral history contributes to memory-based conservation.

Respond 4: Thank you for highlighting the need to situate memory loss more explicitly within the conservation debate. We provide insights from community members (p. 18, pgr. 2, lines 558). We have added a part that weaves together established theories of embodied remembrance, mnemonic sites, and reactive preservation to show how the erosion of lived memory transfers the full burden of meaning onto the physical fabric, thereby heightening the vulnerability of the cold-water baths (p. 18, pgr. 2, lines 551-566). The manuscript now offers a richer theoretical reflection on memory decay, grounds conservation urgency in intergenerational dynamics

Comment 5: Discussion: I recommend that authors better organise the implicit and explicit values into a table or matrix. Also, please avoid redundancy; some values are mentioned in both sections (e.g., water usage, agricultural context. The theoretical analysis of “community value” and “representativeness” using sources like Laurajane Smith (2006) or ICOMOS frameworks needs to be deepened. The concept of “potentiality” (tourism potential) is underdeveloped; how can interpretation strategies be proposed?

Respond 5: Thank you for this clear suggestion. We have created Table 3. Classification of Heritage Values for Cold-Water Baths, which now presents all values (p. 15, lines 434). We realised the phrase “reliance on water resources” in the Environmental value could be interpreted as referring to the same agricultural water use described in the Agricultural value. In fact, the baths used rain-runoff and groundwater seepage collected in wells. To remove the ambiguity, we have replaced that phrase with “non-irrigation water sources (rain-runoff collected in wells and groundwater seepage from adjacent wells),” and we now explicitly note that this water was not employed for crop production (p. 16, lines 475,476) in the clean manuscript. This clarification distinguishes the environmental insight provided by the baths from the broader agricultural context, thereby resolving the confusion. We now explicitly align the baths with the community value (p. 18, pgr. 1, lines 538-542; 548-549). These additions clarify that the baths’ representativeness is not merely descriptive but is actively negotiated and endorsed by local stakeholders. While we recognise the significance of developing future interpretation strategies, creating a comprehensive tourism plan focused solely on this one value could lead to an imbalance across the entire value set and fall outside the scope of the article. Therefore, we have broadened the conclusion to provide a wider perspective with more explicit, practice-oriented recommendations (p. 19, pgr. 1, lines 572-575; pgr. 2, lines 576,577; 581-585; pgr. 5, lines 609-617; pgr. 6, lines 612-627; p. 20, pgr. 7, lines 629-632). We believe these targeted revisions deepen the theoretical analysis requested while maintaining focus and proportionality within the manuscript.