The Assessment of Creative Waterfronts: A Case Study of the Kyrenia Waterfront

Abstract

Nowadays, cities exhibit a high degree of culture, innovation, knowledge, and advanced technology. Therefore, talented people or the creative class have become the focal point of contemporary cities. The productivity of cities affects the economy, attractiveness, and awareness level of society. Economic, socio-cultural, and demographic changes in Kyrenia Waterfront have altered visitors’ expectations; they expect to experience adequate physical quality, practical opportunities, and a collaborative atmosphere. By surveying 247 randomly selected users and conducting site observations, this study aimed to assess user satisfaction at Kyrenia Waterfront and clarify its impacts on the immediate local context. Statistical analysis of the resulting data allowed us to determine the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, creative environmental aspects, waterfront development aspects, and creative waterfront aspects of the Kyrenia Waterfront through the use of SPSS and AMOS. This study revealed that most respondents perceive the waterfront as a positive contribution to the area. On the other hand, the results affirmed that physical quality, practical opportunities, and integration of innovation and technology need to be improved. The process suggests that the viewpoints of locals, visitors, and creative people should be considered in planning and design decisions to contribute to the sufficiency of creative waterfronts.

1. Introduction

Creative environment is a term that has an interdisciplinary background in the literature. This topic is increasing in popularity in the literature. Creativity is discussed, in various fields, as being related to a creative person, process, product, or environment [1]. Creativity can be seen in many academic and social fields, such as literature, urban development, cultural policy, economy, aesthetics, academic writing, theatre, architecture, and education [2].

Nowadays, many cities are experiencing the effects of global development and changes in numerous fields. The developments and changes are continuous, and are now putting people at the center; this means that cities are establishing platforms to motivate and attract people to create innovative ideas and products. In this sense, it is possible to say that those creative people have important roles in creative environments. Cities can discover themselves through creative people; meanwhile, creative industries, creative classes, and city identity are important issues in defining creative environments.

This literature survey reveals that the creative environment is an emerging research topic in several fields. For instance, city planners, urban designers, architects, and researchers have focused on the creative environment alongside tourism, the economy, management, culture, etc. This signals that the topic is becoming a very important concept for cities. The term and idea of a creative environment appeared in the late 1980s. It was a model for the reconstruction process of cities in the process of globalization. At the beginning of the 1990s, the topic became a more popular discussion point, and several cities were accepted as potential cities for motivating creative people to produce and invent innovative ideas. Some of these cities were London, Tokyo, New York, and Amsterdam [3]. Around the world, creative people have become an important resource for the successful futures of cities. This is the age of creativity, and people with original ideas have important roles to play in their cities’ economic growth, competitiveness, and attractiveness.

Because of the variety of fields, players, and contexts, there are numerous ways to classify the research that is rooted in a creative environment. This can be undertaken with an emphasis on process; on creative place as city, place, or environment; on target groups and creative classes; or on production strategies in creative cities.

This study’s primary purpose is to investigate the connection between creative settings and waterfront development. Assuming that such a relationship exists, it is possible to hypothesize that innovative environmental factors can contribute to the growth of the waterfront. In particular, the hypothesis includes the following:

Creative settings promote productivity and innovation at waterfronts. Two sub-goals to the main objective are defining creative environmental ideas and waterfront development concepts and analyzing their underlying variables and relative weights. In addition, another sub-goal is to develop instruments for measuring the creative characteristics of the Kyrenia Waterfront.

2. Theoretical Background

The advanced research and arguments for the creative environment deal with the application of ordinary things using extraordinary methods invented by ordinary people in every niche of life [4]. One of the pioneers of the creative environment concept, Richard Florida, focused on innovation, technology, and talented people. Meanwhile, the other important name related to the creative environment concept, Charles Landry, as well as most other creative environment scientists, has focused on locality and culture. This means that tangible values are most important to Florida and intangible values are most important for Landry and supporters [5]. Consequently, creativity and culture influenced prior periods of technological development and, hence, the development of novel products and industrial practices. The fact is that without creative thought, there can be no innovation. To support this idea, consider Hall’s (1998) definition of creativity: creativity is a novel and original creation deemed significant enough to be added to the culture [6].

As a relatively recent phenomenon, the creative environment represents an inventive site layout. In particular, it consists of two sections: creative and environment, which define the relationship between creativity and the built environment.

Complex contexts foster creativity and clustering. A place’s quality depends on its spatial characteristics, circumstances, and processes. In this regard, Florida (2002) interprets the quality of the environment by discussing aspects of urban areas that attract and retain creative activities and individuals [7].

Those who support the creative city strive for an integrated approach to development and government in which the economy, culture, and urban design are considered simultaneously in order to generate a creative environment. The City of Shanghai, for example, has prioritized the development of three forms of creative space, including creative parks, blocks, and urban regions that encourage the development of a creative environment and provide an opportunity to develop a versatile maker space experience [8]. Creative industries contribute to the enhancement of strategic assets in order to strengthen the city’s identity in terms of innovation. Therefore, Shanghai has been designated as a city of design by the United Nations’ creative cities network [9].

There is a huge amount of research focusing on the process and requirements of the creative environment model in specific cities using case study approaches [10,11]. Cities like Bilbao, Zaragoza, Gothenburg, and Baltimore are given as examples of well-developed creative environments. These studies are especially focused on city image; the conditions of the opportunities for the creative class; venues for culture, tourism, technology, art, and science; and unique public places like technology zones, waterfronts (a few), and spaces where art and artistic activities occur.

Only a few pieces of research have been conducted on creative activity opportunities at regenerated waterfronts. These studies have focused particularly on the economic, environmental, and cultural aspects of the cities as a way of defining creative tourism and creative industry attractiveness. To contribute to the research on creative cities, this research tries to develop strategies in waterfront development to produce more waterfronts that are creative.

It is possible to define the creative environment concept in various ways from various perspectives, showing that this is a multidisciplinary issue. In previous years, creative environment efforts were discussed only within the scope of the cultural protection movement [12]. Later, the importance of creative environment efforts came to be discussed in relation to many other aspects of the city: novel ideas, flexible spaces, mixed-use spaces with artists and other skilled people, physically livable spaces, psychologically complete spaces, attractiveness, technology and research, tolerant spaces, inspirational spaces, inventions [4], and gentrification problems. According to several researchers, the creative environment concept of Florida is only attractive for elite groups, ignoring the comfort of locals and workers, and that this leads towards gentrification [13]. Many other researchers agree that the creative environment concept is necessary in terms of instability, diversity, usefulness, ethnicity, identity or profile, leadership, networks, security, education [5], various arguments and discussion opportunities, public policies, productivity [2], loyalty, authenticity, economic development, branding and marketing, art-led and place-based development with multisector partnerships, urban planning, and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings as art galleries or for other kinds of creative activities. To create some cultural amenities, temporal festivals and fairs, and creative destinations, city planners need to be aware of the authenticity of the urban experience. In this sense, they can offer opportunities for varying demographics [14]. Creative city making is known as creative placemaking. It is related to the idea of making the physical places substantial arts and cultural intervention areas [15]. Grodach, Currid-Helkett, Foster, and Murdoch (2014) mentioned that the creative economy has strong relationships with the culture. The cultural destination planning approach can promote cultural motivation and loyalty. It is also important to protect authenticity for fast-developing cities [16].

Goldberg-Miller (2015) declared that Creative Cities are places where cultural policy, economic development, and state and private support come together and play highly visible roles. Stakeholders, including urban planners, policymakers, elected officials, and the cultural community promote an agenda based on a variety of planning documents to brand the city as a creative destination and cultural powerhouse [17]. Redaelli (2016) observed that creative placemaking focuses on arts-led, place-based development through multisector partnerships [18]. Grodach (2017) mentioned that the creative environment has been shaped with the visions of urban cultural and economic development policies. It is still the trending discussion topic of today’s policy arena [19]. Batabyal, and Beladi (2018) stated that cities can be creative by utilizing local public goods such as cultural amenities, quality schools, and public transit to carry out effectively the attract function for the creative class [20]. Goldberg-Miller (2019) point out the three aspects of the creative environment paradigm that help to understand the breadth and depth of this nascent topic area: economic development, urban planning, and public policy [21]. O’Connor, Gu, and Lim (2020) stated that the creative environment model covers projects around heritage assets, such as building new art galleries and concert halls; promoting festivals and cultural tourism; developing housing, up-market retail, and leisure facilities; and creating start-up and co-working spaces [22].

Despite the positive impacts of the creative environment concept, there is some opposition on this issue: several scholars have reported the negative effects of creative workers on the city. These researchers believe that the creative class may cause gentrification [13,23,24]. On the other hand, a wide range of researchers rely on the positive impacts of creative classes, trusting that talented people can create innovative and impressive products and provide huge economic gains for the city. In this regard, this research will focus on the positive attributes of creative environment concepts to demonstrate opportunity for attractive and creative waterfronts.

The creative economy is a model that encourages social inputs, cultural variety, and human-centered developments. It is a robust source of employment and spurs linkage to the global economy [25]. The creative economy cultivates economic growth and development by using and evolving creative values.

The creative economy has a positive impact on economic and place activities by developing the social status of the city, creating job opportunities, and advancing urban quality of life. It has an important role in creative manpower and the quality of entrepreneurship [26]. It is possible to evaluate the creative economy from sociological dimensions in that it represents the role and cultural dynamism of the creative class. At the same time, the economic dimensions of creativity have more important gains for cities [26].

Cultural tourism is all about signs and symbols, roles and rituals, and buildings and landscapes [27]. According to various studies, visitors want to step out of the role of the tourist and today’s technology allows visitors to travel virtually easier than physically. This may cause a loss of the sensual, emotional, and physical experience of being in a place [28]. Previously, more tourists wanted to travel to new places to get involved in everyday life and experience the destination up close and personal by familiarizing themselves with local architecture, literature, art, food, history, and more [29].

Besides the old tourism concepts (e.g., sun–sea tourism and cultural tourism), the new generation of creative tourism includes educational, emotional, social, and participatory interactions between the visitors, the place, and its living culture [10,30]. Moreover, the creative tourism concept takes shape with creative business tourists like artists, designers, trade or event producers, creative product organizers and networks, critical curators, global foundations, educational tourists like students, and cultural tourists that are motivated by knowledge economy transfer or urban renovation [31].

The simultaneous improvements of policies for port developments are focused on job creation, foreign direct investments, creative sector developments, environmental-friendly mobility, and sustainable land use. These are the major issues for modern city concepts [32].

Urban tourism developments, which can be made by tourism managers and urban planners, have to provide creative cities as a resource and make new opportunities to attract creative tourists [30].

Creative tourism is a significant shift, following the sustainability paradigm, that can also deal with socio-spatial organization of coastal areas and resorts [33,34]. Creative industries, cultural organizations and venues, and recreational facilities in urban spaces aim to attract creative tourism, which is different from cultural tourism behaviors [10]. Tourism has always had a positive effect on city identity, regional cultural practices, sports, and nature. Cultural tourism caused the growth of mass tourism.

Besides cultural heritage, cities also offer economic benefits, along with mass and diverse tourism. It is possible to see such cultural heritage and economic benefits in port cities with their warehouses, silos, wharves, lighthouses, and other industrial archaeological assets [32]. Nowadays, mass tourism has more creative forms even though it still relies on people having holidays. On the other hand, following cultural and elitist tourism, which consists of must-see sightseeing open to the masses, consumers want to have creative and more personalized tourism experiences [33]. Creative tourism is not just based on visiting heritage sites, as so many other tourists do; it also includes visiting contemporary cultures and having personal experiences there. Creative tourism is expressed here as an aspect of creative environment concept.

According to Florida (2002), the presence of a vibrant cultural image, street culture, and urban buzz are variables in the “soft infrastructure” (the appearance of the city and sociocultural characteristics), as well as the “hard infrastructure” (the physical attributes of the city, job opportunities, higher wages, and affordability of housing) [7].

Based on the creative assets index, the following factors and parameters should be taken into account when describing creative cities: openness, tolerance, government regulations, research, development, new technologies, actions that affect the natural environment, quality of life (venues, amenities, facilities), cultural capital, participation in cultural activities, tourism, recreation, and creativity [35].

As a result of research and policy development, urban waterfront development aspects remain relevant today. Due to the evolving requirements of urban life, urban waterfront construction needs to incorporate several contemporary features. Accordingly, the creative city concept is one of the current characteristics contributing to a city’s economic viability and competitiveness. These characteristics are particularly prevalent in metropolitan areas. For a city to maximize its benefits, attract skilled and varied individuals, and foster innovative ideas, it is essential to include unique features on its waterfront. A review of established studies will be presented in this study to examine creative collaborations with waterfront development.

It may be challenging for waterfronts to communicate their values to a broader audience. In addition, the creative city concept serves as a method for attracting qualified audiences to the city. Consequently, the creative city is often associated with urban settlements without considering waterfront areas. There have; however, been very few studies that highlight waterfronts as creative milieus. Due to its unique landforms, types, and activity opportunities, the waterfront plays a vital role in a city’s identity and image.

As Richards and Wilson (2007) state in their book, “Tourism, Creativity, and Development”, Barcelona’s waterfront and street art have served as models for other cities. Barcelona has invested heavily in public art and outdoor museums, with over a thousand sculptures built for urban spaces, including works by Miró, Lichtenstein, and Calatrava [36].

According to Vanolo (2008, p. 380), in his article titled “The Image of the Creative City: Some Reflections on Urban Branding in Turin”, Turin has been defined by its clear and proven strategies. In this evaluation, subjective–objective documentation is primarily relied upon, and surveys are still lacking, except those revealing slight increases in tourism activity. Despite this, surveys indicate that the city’s inner image is improving through initiatives to enhance urban culture. A significant portion of the appreciation for depictions of “the buzz” is evident in representations of prominent landmarks in the city. Murazzi, a neighborhood along the Po River waterfront (ho me to several nightclubs), is an example, as is Quadrilatero, a significant area recently gentrified by “creatives” (primarily young artists and trendy neighborhoods). Apart from conveying a stereotypical image of an urban playground to people seeking nighttime entertainment, such places are crucial to the concept of a lively city [37].

In the article “Waterfronts between Sicily and Malta: an integrated and creative planning approach”, by Carta (2012), waterfronts possess a “plural identity” that manifests in a polysemy that consists of seven categories, namely seven multiple points of view, which make up the entire waterfront; structure, uses, permeability, mobility, settlement, production, and projects [38].

In Kostopoulou’s (2013) article “On the Revitalized Waterfront: Creative Milieu for Creative Tourism”, the author examines how transformed waterfronts can serve as creative milieus for creative tourism and enhance the urban economy. To maximize their creative potential, port cities can preserve historic harbor areas that highlight their unique character and fully utilize the waterfront urban landscape to facilitate the development of creative enterprises. Creative and cultural enterprises can improve a city’s image by generating revenue and employment opportunities. As such, historically transformed waterfronts can be catalysts for urban economic transformation and creative tourism development, allowing locals and tourists to return to historic harbor locations for business, socializing, or leisure, as well as for creative and cultural events. Developing historic waterfront locations as creative milieus allows for the development of uniquely designed agoras that can be used creatively by locals and tourists alike. As part of this scope, the exploitation of the waterfront’s natural and urban environments should be more compatible, including creative use of the site while maintaining the essence of the setting in order to convey an impression of the city’s competitiveness. Due to the geography of waterfront development at various regional and scalar levels, it is essential to conserve and promote the uniqueness of specific sites and ecosystems. It requires cross-disciplinary assessments and management to examine the unique characteristics of different cities that have not yet taken part in urban waterfront design [10].

Miloš and Dragana (2021) indicate in their article “Mythology as a Driver of Creative Economy in Waterfront Regeneration: Savamala in Belgrade, Serbia” that shorelines can be interpreted globally or individually according to the viewpoint and impression of residents, urban planners, stakeholders, government officials, and artists. For a smooth transition between the city areas surrounding the waterfront, meticulous planning is necessary to emphasize the spiritual and practical significance of the location. The examples provided in the article illustrate cultural workers’ participation in Savamala’s redevelopment. However, they represent an effort to overcome the inadequacies of the creative city development approach in general. Interestingly, in Serbia, the creative economy is a dominant force in the public sector, particularly in the arts, culture, research, and development. Savamala is a unique and excellent example of a collection of entrepreneurs, start-ups, artists’ workshops, and cultural institutions funded by private sources. As the Savamala area gradually became a myth among those who participated in its creative economy, the link between cultural heritage and the creative economy grew significantly. As a result of all of these improvements, this location has become one of Belgrade’s top tourist attractions [39].

The port district of today can therefore serve both as a focal point for sustainable urban growth and as a point of access to land and water for people and commerce. A connection between the new prospects presented by traditional port regions and creative urban development is necessary for a proper understanding and exploitation of this potential.

To formulate the aspects of the creative environment concept, all of the assessments have been collected under eleven headings:

• Awareness of people: To build awareness in people about education, activities, events, and creative works [3,19,40,41,42,43].
• Promoting entrepreneurship: To establish consultancies and/or funding for working spaces, educational activities, and interaction spaces [19,41,42,44,45]).
• Creative spaces: To attract creative talent and enable successful and creative work progress [10,41,46,47,48,49,50].
• Cultural protection: To protect the existing and/or essential historic context, cultural heritage, and unique values [19,31,40,42,51,52,53,54].
• Updated and/or renewed physical comfort: To use the updated physical tools to meet contemporary needs and accommodate requirements for physical well-being [2,10,32,37,38,55,56,57].
• Creative activities: To understand creative activities according to the level of success of creative works in the city and/or place [31,41,46,49,52].
• Political support: To have local political authorities provide needed funds, proper working spaces, and adequate discussion platforms between creative classes [19,31,42,44,58].
• Social cohesion: To have different age groups, ethnicities, education levels, and/or genders represent the variety of people that are essential for the realization of creative works [4,13,19,24,31,52,59].
• Quality of life: To guarantee accessibility as an essential issue to attract people and safety as important for quality of life [2,10,32,37,38,55,56,57].
• Tolerance: To ensure the openness of the environment expresses its level of publicness since creative environments are places where all kinds of people are welcome to come and enjoy.
• Innovation: To follow contemporary developments in different fields to realize innovative ideas [3,11,52,53,60,61,62,63].

To clarify the applicability of these aspects of the creative environment concept to waterfronts, it is appropriate to understand waterfronts and waterfront development theory more clearly.

The process of developing urban waterfront development strategies has a long history and a variety of approaches. Waterfront development strategies were originally based on earlier urban development or cultural development strategies. These strategies were shaped by positive impacts because they created new employment areas and wove new cultural fabric into the city. Then, the strategies started to deal with the social and socio-economic issues experienced by waterfronts because of their potential to host cultural events like festivals. Later, these issues became discussion points at the global level for dealing with networking and connecting the ports with each other.

Waterfronts and city docklands continue to be transformed [60]. Today, waterfront development strategies aim to create new social facilities, expand employment, and create a base for environmental, economic, and social development for many declining waterfronts [64]. Waterfront development strategies continue to be developed, and nowadays, creativity and creative environment planning strategies are starting to shape urban planning strategies as well. Waterfront development projects can provide high real estate values, and property investment returns, socioeconomic development for inner-city communities, the development of new visitor markets, job creation, environmental enhancement, historic conservation, city and regional promotion, improved infrastructure, destination branding, cultural creativity, and new creative environment districts.

Port cities can enlarge their creative spaces and creative capacities by protecting historic harbors as not only a showcase, but also by reusing them and accommodating creative industries. Creative and cultural activities play an important role in waterfront-diversified redevelopment by providing income and employment opportunities and by upgrading the city and area image [10].

Similarly, with the creative environment concept, it is possible to define the waterfront development concept in various ways from various perceptions that show this is a multidisciplinary issue. Breen and Rigby (1985) mentioned that adequate waterfront development application can increase employment opportunities and contribute to the cultural fabric [65]. Hoyle, Pinder, and Husain (1988) said that proper planning and assessment processes are needed when considering the waterfront as a sensitive place that interfaces as a zone of conflict and/or cooperation and competition [66]. Falk (1989) stated that appropriate development of waterfronts has positive impacts on interaction capabilities and socioeconomic character [67]. Jones (1998) declared that the importance of proper design adaptation, environmental incorporation, consideration of social contributions, and consideration of economic objectives are significant issues for the waterfront development process [60]. Mayer (2000) revealed the importance of considering urban settlements during the development of waterfronts [68]. Desfor, Laidley, Stevens, and Schubert (2012) mentioned the prominence of consideration of the diversification of traditional port-related uses around the world [69]. Smith, and Garcia Ferrari (2012) stated two aspects of waterfront development: increasing marketing opportunities and promoting and encouraging opportunities for residential, leisure, tourism, commerce, and public uses [70]. Carta (2012) pointed out seven principles for the development of creative waterfronts: structure, uses, permeability, mobility, settlement, production, and projects [38]. Timur (2013) mentioned eight aspects of waterfront development: expansion (if possible); temporary events and opportunities; itinerary; new urban waterfront itineraries (if possible); safety; suitable for cargo and passenger ships (if needed); reuse; flood defense (if needed); and artificial urban beaches (if possible and needed) [71]. Finally, Jones A. L. (2017) mentioned eleven points for waterfront development strategies: innovation, creativity, visionary design concept, cultural sensitivity, cultural capacity, community resilience, connectivity, promotion, entrepreneurs, integration, and appropriate scale of development [64].

Two major categories of creative classes exist: the super-creative core and the creative professional. The core group of super-creative individuals includes scientists, engineers, university professors, poets, writers, artists, architects, designers, culturally significant individuals, researchers, and analysts. A creative professional group represents individuals working in fields such as work management, high technology, financial services, law, and health care [7]. The “creativity index”, as suggested by Florida (2002), is a combination of the “creative class index”, “innovation index”, “diversity index”, “talent index”, “gay index”, “melting-pot index”, and “bohemian index”. He intended to use these measures to assess the quality of a place and the factors that attract talented people. According to Franqueira (2009), creative environments feature several crucial characteristics. The move from an industrial-based to a knowledge-based society has resulted in unique types of value generation, one of which is knowledge-based businesses [72]. In addition, several literary works acknowledge students as prospective knowledge workers [73,74] who can qualify as members of the so-called ‘creative class’.

According to the theoretical research on waterfront development aspects, the assessments were collected under six main headings: functional, physical, social, economic, cultural, and political support.

Subsequently, the aspects of the creative environment concept and waterfront development concept were grouped according to their meanings and contents. Accordingly, the creative waterfront headings became protection of culture, tolerance, promoting entrepreneurship, creative environment, creative activities, innovation and technology, awareness, quality of life and physical comfort, political support, social cohesion, diversity of function, and economic contribution (Figure 1).

The components were linked based on a literature review and an analysis of instances. According to the modified model presented in Figure 2, creative waterfronts incorporate all twelve elements of the creative environment. However, only six of these factors are relevant to waterfront development. It is thus possible to enhance waterfronts as creative places by embracing all twelve principles and maximizing their potential.

3. Assessment of the Kyrenia Waterfront in Northern Cyprus

This study deals with the Kyrenia Waterfront in Northern Cyprus. Kyrenia is a city with natural as well as historical amenities (

Table 1. Kyrenia Waterfront.

Location	Kyrenia, North Cyprus
Size	4000 m2
Information	The area has been combined with a long pedestrian pathway, huge trees, squares, harbor and pier, sitting elements, statues, children’s playground, park, hotels, restaurants, café/bars, bank offices, historical castle, beach, car park, museum, mosque, church, amphitheater, a memorial area, and some other landscaping elements like shrubs and lighting elements.

). It has been built up with hotels; educational places; art, cultural, and event centers; and a high density of tourist attractions. There have been attempts to form a creative place-destination for the waterfront area as a tourist destination [96]. This study attempts to evaluate the city of Kyrenia’s waterfront within the scope of creative waterfront components.

Kyrenia has experienced urban sprawl since 2000. Built structures typically incorporate three-dimensional characteristics without considering outdoor activities or the surrounding environment in three dimensions. The municipal council of Kyrenia has developed a plan to improve the urban area in response to several circumstances surrounding recent events and their adverse consequences. The city of Kyrenia implemented a comprehensive renovation plan in 2005 to increase access for both citizens and international visitors. Despite this, concerns about the creative classes and creative issues are less well addressed [96,97,98]. In this sense, this study will help lay the groundwork for the area’s future development.

Several improvements have been made to all circulation areas, including urban equipment, sidewalks, crosswalks, and parking lots. A large portion of the urban waterfront has been designated for pedestrian use. Various landscaping and cityscape components have also been added, allowing people to enjoy urban waterfronts in a secure and comfortable environment.

For this study, the Kyrenia Waterfront was selected, which is the most important place for North Cyprus in terms of its touristic attractiveness and unique characteristics. Furthermore, the area needs proper contemporary urban development applications to make its potential visible and to increase economic gain. Figure 3 depicts the current condition of the city. As an example of the historical condition of the Kyrenia Waterfront, it is helpful to observe the old photograph captured by Maynard Owen Williams in 1928 and published in National Geographic Magazine [99].

4. Materials and Methods

To determine the creative potential of the Kyrenia Waterfront, a survey was carried out through a questionnaire developed by the authors. The questionnaire was set according to the components of the Creative Waterfront Model. The survey data collection was conducted from September to November in 2020. A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed, and 247 were usable for the final analysis. Three respondents (case numbers 54, 181, and 200) were removed due to appearing not to be engaged (they answered somewhat agree to every Likert-scale item).

All of the items were assessed using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5, meaning ‘completely agree’, to 1, meaning ‘completely disagree’.

The questionnaires took place face-to-face. Responses were requested to complete the questionnaire with deep focus and then ask if they needed clarification.

4.1. Measurement Instruments

The respondents’ profiles include gender, age, employment, education, type of visitor, and visit frequency. These were reported through the frequency analysis along with their subjective responses to ‘like to spend time’, ‘suggesting to others’, ‘well satisfied’, and ‘easily accessible’. Moreover, the frequencies and percentages of each question in the survey were evaluated through descriptive analysis. Before the analysis, the data screening check was applied to check for missing data and normality of the data. Missing values were observed in the questions relating to ‘Cypriot culture is reflected in the place’, ‘Historical references are protected and/or reflected in the waterfront’, ‘Adequacy of open and/or close spaces, which are motivating for creative productivity’, ‘Competence of consultancy and/or funding opportunities’, and ‘Sufficiency of rules and regulations, which were adapted in the place’. We looked at the surrounding values of the other indicators for the latent factor, and we used the mode value for that respondent to impute the missing values.

4.2. The Sample and Data Collection

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was tested, along with the sampling adequacy measurement, convergent validity, discriminant validity, as well as reliability of the variables. Moreover, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a variety of measurement model fit was performed. The one-way ANOVA test and Tukey’s post hoc HSD test were performed to explore differences in variables between the subgroups of related variables as well as other demographic variables. SPSS V.25 and AMOS V.24 were used to carry out all analyses in this study, with confidence levels of 95%.

4.3. Sample Size

The study was limited to the user population within walking distance (800 m or approximately 10 min walking time) of the waterfront area. This limitation ensured that respondents were directly involved in the changes to their everyday environment and neighborhood. Four regions were identified within an 800 m radius of the center. According to the 2011 census, Kyrenia municipality (excluding the outskirts) had a population of 33,207. To consider the immediate context of waterfront, two districts of Kyrenia were selected to be considered: Aşağı Girne and Yukarı Girne. There are 4471 residents living in Aşağı Girne, and 16,380 live in Yukarı Girne, together equaling 20,851 inhabitants living in the immediate context of the case study [100]. To determine the correct sample size, Daniel and Terrell’s (1995) Formula (1) for applications with finite populations was considered the appropriate calculation tool for this study. The sum of the two districts (20,851) was considered for the formula.

$$\mathrm{n} \ge \frac{Z^2\times N\times p\times q}{N\times D^2+Z^2\times p\times q}$$

(1)

where n = sample size, Z = confidence coefficient (z = 1.96 for 95% confidence level), N = population size, p = proportion of the sample in the population (as the proportion of the sample in the population was initially unknown, and due to the lack of a preliminary investigation, values p and q were taken to be equal to each other and 50%), q = 1 − p = 0.5, D = sampling error (10%)

$$\begin{array}{l}\mathrm{n} \ge \frac{{\left(1.96\right)}^2\times 20851\times \left(0.5\right)\times \left(0.5\right)}{20851\times {\left(0.10\right)}^2+{\left(1.96\right)}^2\times \left(0.5\right)\times \left(0.5\right)}\\ \mathrm{n} \ge 95\end{array}$$

According to this formula, the calculated value of n is 95. Therefore, the survey was conducted with 250 randomly selected people for reliable results. The questionnaire was carried out by direct interviews with residents and visitors on weekdays and weekends within the period of September through November 2020.

5. Results and Discussion

The findings are expressed under four subsections focusing on the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, creative environment aspects of the Kyrenia Waterfront, waterfront development aspects of the Kyrenia Waterfront, and creative waterfront aspects of the Kyrenia Waterfront.

5.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The profiles of the respondents are presented in

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics and general perceptions of respondents at the Kyrenia Waterfront.

Profile Category		Frequency (N = 247)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Female	69	27.9
	Male	167	67.6
	Other	11	4.5
Age	18–24	61	24.7
	25–34	77	31.2
	35–44	62	25.1
	45–54	27	10.9
	55–64	12	4.9
	65 & above	8	3.2
Educational Level	Primary/Secondary	14	5.7
	High School	52	21.1
	University	138	55.9
	Master/Ph.D./…	43	17.4
Employment	Working	142	57.5
	University Student	79	32.0
	Retired	11	4.5
	Unemployed	9	3.6
	Housewife	6	2.4
Nationality	Cypriot	121	49.0
	Turkish	81	32.8
	Other	45	18.2
User Group	Creative Class	95	38.5
	Employees & Employers	49	19.8
	Students	67	27.1
	Other	36	14.6
Visitor Type	Tourist	9	3.6
	Local	90	36.4
	Resident of Kyrenia	111	44.9
	Other	37	15.0
Visit Frequency	Everyday	39	15.8
	Weakly	88	35.6
	Monthly	77	31.2
	Seasonal	43	17.4
Like to Spend Time	Yes	222	89.9
	No	25	10.1
Suggesting to Others	Yes	183	74.1
	No	64	25.9
Well Satisfied	Yes	117	47.4
	No	130	52.6
Easily Accessible	Yes	93	37.7
	No	154	62.3

. The results of the descriptive analysis of the gender variable of the respondents was male (67.6%), female (27.9), and other (4.5%). The majority of the respondents were 18 to 44 years old (81.0%). The majority of the respondents were from North Cyprus (49.0%) and Turkey (32.8%). Moreover, the respondents consisted of the creative class (38.5%), students (27.1%), employees and employers (19.8%), and other (14.6%). The findings also show that the majority of respondents were educated at the university level (55.9%), and a similar proportion were employed (57.7%), while about a third were currently students (32.0%). Furthermore, the majority of respondents were residents of Kyrenia (44.9%) or local people (36.4%).

In addition, there were few tourists (3.6%) during the study period; rather, more than half (66.8%) were weekly and monthly visitors. The majority (89.9%) of the respondents were interested in spending their time there, and nearly three-quarters (74.1%) would suggest the place to others. Finally, it was shown that almost half (47.4%) of the respondents were well satisfied or felt pleased with the environment, but a majority (62.3%) of the respondents perceived that the place was not easily accessible.

5.2. Creative Environment Aspects of the Kyrenia Waterfront

Respondents were asked 25 questions regarding aspects of the creative environment. The results of the descriptive analysis for the creative environment variables of the questionnaire (

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of questionnaire variables—Creative Environment.

Aspects	Variables	Mean	Mode	Std. Dev.	Skewness	Kurtosis	Min	Max
Awareness of People	I am satisfied with the basic life amenities.	3.05	3	1.132	0.006	−0.728	1	5
	I am motivated to keep the environment clean.	4.53	5	0.987	−2.209	3.935	1	5
	This environment is an attractive place with events and activities.	2.69	2	1.257	0.508	−0.900	1	5
Promoting Entrepre-neurship	The place provides economic gain for many people.	3.07	2a	1.260	−0.028	−1.155	1	5
	The place invites entrepreneurs to invest.	2.79	2	1.173	0.210	−0.805	1	5
Protection of Culture	The place is welcoming users from different cultures and languages.	3.49	5	1.331	−0.286	−1.243	1	5
	The environment protects its historic context, cultural heritage, and unique values.	2.58	2	1.288	0.494	−0.761	1	5
	The environment has a contemporary appearance.	2.42	2	1.158	0.560	−0.475	1	5
	I feel the culture of the city in the place.	2.66	2	1.311	0.445	−0.961	1	5
Physical Quality	The physical quality is adequate.	2.40	2	1.150	0.663	−0.210	1	5
	The place has a contemporary image.	2.40	2	1.139	0.646	−0.261	1	5
Creative Activities	There are various art activities in the environment.	2.23	2	1.109	0.643	−0.417	1	5
	Public amenities are sufficient and appropriate in the environment.	2.21	2	1.074	0.794	0.229	1	5
	The place has adequate alternate space for the creative class.	2.28	2	1.133	0.753	−0.045	1	5
	Cypriot culture is reflected in the place.	2.50	2	1.196	0.501	−0.547	1	5
Social Cohesion	Different age groups, ethnicity, education levels, and/or genders can enjoy the environment.	3.15	2	1.385	0.017	−1.305	1	5
	There are comfortable places for socializing.	2.78	2	1.264	0.427	−0.849	1	5
Quality of Life	The place is accessible.	2.77	2	1.418	0.258	−1.259	1	5
	I am feeling safe in the place.	3.04	2	1.290	0.096	−1.087	1	5
	The place is clean.	2.51	2	1.186	0.605	−0.356	1	5
Tolerances	All user groups with different genders, beliefs, etc. can enjoy the environment.	3.25	2a	1.431	−0.132	−1.434	1	5
	I do not feel annoyed and/or oppressed in the place.	3.07	3	1.394	−0.087	−1.234	1	5
Innovation	The place has given me opportunities to construct my innovative ideas.	2.38	2	1.204	0.901	0.099	1	5
	Creative ideas and/or arts exist in the place.	2.34	2	1.118	0.847	0.267	1	5
	Contemporary technological tools like energy consumption via water, digital lighting systems, development areas, and/or simulation areas are placed.	2.05	1	1.134	1.043	0.393	1	5

Note: a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown; Std. Dev. = Standardized Deviation; Min. = Minimum; Max. = Maximum.

) show that all of the variables had a fairly normal distribution. That is, the skewness and kurtosis values for all of the variables except the variable ‘I am motivated to keep the environment clean’ were between the cut-off range values of ±3.3 [101].

5.3. Waterfront Development Aspects of the Kyrenia Waterfront

The results of the descriptive analysis for the waterfront development variables of the questionnaire (

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of questionnaire variables—Waterfront Development [96].

Aspects	Variables	Mean	Mode	Std. Dev.	Skewness	Kurtosis	Min	Max
Functional	The waterfront has various functional opportunities.	2.992	2	1.272	0.039	−1.066	1	5
	The waterfront provides joyful areas with music, food, literature, dance, and/or maritime heritage.	2.563	2	1.201	0.625	−0.434	1	5
	Different types of water-based activities can be seen.	2.211	2	1.139	0.877	0.119	1	5
Physical	The waterfront is well maintained.	2.178	2	1.048	0.877	0.454	1	5
	The place possesses various art objects in good physical condition.	2.231	2	1.032	1.003	0.899	1	5
	Urban furniture is in good physical condition.	2.162	2	1.070	0.938	0.405	1	5
	The waterfront is accessible for able and disabled people.	2.069	1	1.189	1.022	0.104	1	5
	The area has easy access to other public environments.	2.243	1	1.235	0.819	−0.336	1	5
	It is easy to reach the waterfront via pedestrian access, bicycle lanes, and/or public transportation.	1.947	1	1.079	1.084	0.481	1	5
	Traffic condition is proper.	2.150	1	1.178	0.909	0.049	1	5
	Parking conditions are adequate.	1.915	1	1.088	1.354	1.365	1	5
Social	The environment is attractive.	2.834	2	1.307	0.212	−1.132	1	5
	People with different education levels, age groups, ethnicities, and income levels can enjoy the place.	3.126	2a	1.410	−0.023	−1.331	1	5
	It is a good experience to spend time in the place.	3.138	3	1.327	−0.150	−1.099	1	5
Economic	The economic and nature-friendly design approach was considered during the development process.	2.417	1	1.230	0.577	−0.540	1	5
	The area provides good economic income.	2.846	2	1.275	0.161	−1.067	1	5
	I like to visit here frequently.	2.899	2	1.295	0.178	−1.034	1	5
Cultural	Historical references are protected and/or reflected in the waterfront.	2.344	2	1.182	0.749	−0.252	1	5
	There are cultural and art activities in the place.	2.166	2	1.134	1.019	0.488	1	5
	The unique image has been protected and the image has developed.	2.215	2	1.107	0.834	0.199	1	5
Politic support	The development process has been done with a successful cooperation process with related stakeholders.	2.211	2	1.076	0.656	−0.159	1	5
	Creativity, innovation, and/or social well-being policies were well considered during the development process.	2.186	2	1.066	0.678	−0.143	1	5
	Proper regulations are adopted by politicians to provide continuous maintenance.	2.040	1	1.055	0.820	0.052	1	5

Note: a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown; Std. Dev. = standard deviation; Min. = minimum; Max. = maximum.

) show that all of the variables had a normal distribution. That is, the skewness and kurtosis values for all of the variables were between the cut-off range values of ±3.3 [101].

5.4. Creative Waterfront Aspects of the Kyrenia Waterfront

The results of the descriptive analysis for the creative waterfront variables of the questionnaire (

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of questionnaire variables—Creative Waterfront.

Aspects	Variables	Mean	Mode	Std. Dev.	Skewness	Kurtosis	Min.	Max.
Protection of Culture	Adequacy of cultural promotion.	2.113	1	1.142	0.865	−0.126	1	5
	Competence of cultural spaces.	2.206	2	1.134	0.766	−0.207	1	5
	The capability of contextual protection (historic and/or cultural heritage).	2.162	1	1.168	0.854	−0.130	1	5
	Protection level of an existing unique culture.	2.117	2	1.070	0.828	0.058	1	5
	Festival opportunities in the place.	2.130	2	1.028	1.029	0.863	1	5
	Access to local foods.	2.486	2	1.265	0.627	−0.580	1	5
	Access to local arts.	2.089	2	1.059	1.145	1.100	1	5
	Adequacy of art activities.	2.036	2	1.045	1.241	1.365	1	5
Tolerances	Welcoming level of the place.	2.895	3	1.333	0.091	−1.137	1	5
	Sufficiency level of open-minded people.	2.486	3	1.216	0.409	−0.727	1	5
	Freedom level.	3.166	5	1.528	−0.090	−1.507	1	5
Promoting Entrepre-neurship	Competence of consultancy and/or funding opportunities.	2.300	2	1.078	0.774	0.297	1	5
	Competence of collaborative discussion spaces for stakeholders.	2.283	2	1.008	0.654	0.291	1	5
	Adequacy of investment activities.	2.186	2	0.982	0.682	0.266	1	5
Creative Environment	The capability of exhibition spaces.	2.032	1	1.004	0.908	0.616	1	5
	Suitability of performance areas.	2.000	1	1.044	1.103	0.978	1	5
	Adequacy of open and/or close spaces, which are motivating for creative productivity.	2.134	1	1.049	0.732	0.034	1	5
Creative Activities	Sufficiency of creative ideas, which come true.	2.121	1	1.068	0.827	0.221	1	5
	Competence in creative work activities.	2.024	1	0.979	0.789	0.233	1	5
	The capability of creative actions.	1.988	2	0.998	1.113	1.071	1	5
Innovation and Technology	Sufficiency of innovative ideas, which come true.	1.955	2	0.968	1.120	1.216	1	5
	Sufficiency of technological ideas, which come true.	1.996	2	1.034	1.187	1.133	1	5
	Adequacy of information tools for visitors.	1.879	1	0.951	1.047	0.761	1	5
	Existence of digital lighting systems.	1.968	1	0.995	1.062	0.984	1	5
	Existence of development areas.	1.919	1	1.041	1.101	0.741	1	5
	Existence of R&D areas.	1.887	1	0.969	1.014	0.682	1	5
	Existence of research areas.	1.915	1	1.042	1.062	0.639	1	5
	Existence of simulation areas.	1.814	1	0.931	1.079	0.880	1	5
	Existence of energy consumption via water.	1.814	1	0.962	1.211	1.057	1	5
	Access to the Internet.	2.040	1	1.077	0.981	0.359	1	5
Awareness	Adequacy of motivated people to keep the place clean.	2.004	1	1.160	1.158	0.524	1	5
	Adequacy of motivated people to promote their art, music, and literature in the place.	2.016	1	1.097	1.105	0.683	1	5
	Adequacy of responsive people for their environment and society.	2.032	1	1.151	1.098	0.458	1	5
Quality of Life and Physical Comfort	The efficiency of protection of natural spaces.	2.170	2	1.080	1.043	0.756	1	5
	Suitability of accessibility.	2.308	2	1.152	0.727	−0.323	1	5
	Appropriateness of functional variety.	2.150	2	1.019	0.997	0.765	1	5
	Adequacy of architecture quality.	2.146	2	1.098	0.840	0.048	1	5
	Adequacy of urban design quality.	2.117	2	1.011	0.975	0.828	1	5
	Sufficiency of traffic, and access to car parking	1.911	1	0.992	1.213	1.246	1	5
	Sufficiency of transportation.	1.980	1	1.022	1.031	0.638	1	5
	Possibility of relaxation.	2.538	2	1.287	0.520	−0.784	1	5
	Adequacy of access for disabled.	1.947	1	1.040	1.045	0.627	1	5
	Access to cycling.	2.077	1	1.129	0.907	0.014	1	5
	Access for pedestrians.	2.304	1	1.237	0.653	−0.617	1	5
	Adequacy of safety.	2.340	2	1.202	0.693	−0.382	1	5
	Suitability of urban furniture (seating, lighting, shading, plantings, etc.) and harmony between each other.	2.174	2	1.107	0.991	0.494	1	5
	Adequacy of cleanliness.	2.138	2	1.019	0.814	0.425	1	5
	Access to urban balconies (view terraces).	2.130	2	1.078	1.015	0.641	1	5
Politic Support to Relevant Authorities	Sufficiency of rules and regulations, which were adapted into the place.	2.304	2	1.094	0.689	0.052	1	5
	Competence of funding opportunities for the development of the place.	2.182	2	1.030	0.822	0.599	1	5
	Adequacy of political support for the arrangement of a platform for stakeholders and/or investors.	2.162	2	1.114	1.008	0.612	1	5
Social Cohesion	Sufficiency of attractiveness.	3.105	4	1.345	−0.092	−1.194	1	5
	Existence of different age groups.	3.206	2	1.341	−0.006	−1.283	1	5
	Existence of different ethnicities.	3.235	5	1.377	−0.109	−1.277	1	5
	Existence of different educational levels.	3.170	5	1.413	−0.026	−1.362	1	5
	Existence of different genders.	3.215	5	1.451	−0.170	−1.330	1	5
Diversity of Function	Adequacy of accommodation opportunities.	3.194	3	1.332	−0.091	−1.161	1	5
	Existence of water-based activities.	2.190	2	1.137	0.891	0.228	1	5
	Variety of activities.	2.275	2	1.035	0.782	0.411	1	5
	Access to the other functions.	2.247	2	1.004	0.630	0.136	1	5
	Access to recreational facilities.	2.749	2	1.282	0.386	−0.877	1	5
	Sufficiency of shopping opportunities.	2.822	2	1.325	0.300	−1.111	1	5
	Eligibility for sports activities.	2.028	2	1.026	1.037	0.888	1	5
Economic Contribution	Welcoming level of the environment.	2.656	2	1.300	0.314	−1.033	1	5
	The efficiency level of increased visitor numbers.	2.591	3	1.182	0.361	−0.666	1	5
	Adequacy of strategic and/or economic agreements with other cities.	2.247	2	1.000	0.718	0.352	1	5
	Sufficiency of investment.	2.077	2	0.991	0.906	0.801	1	5
	Competence of employment opportunities.	2.263	2	1.059	0.575	−0.249	1	5
	Acceptable cost of transportation.	1.899	2	0.929	1.122	1.402	1	5
	The sufficiency of tourist attraction level.	2.267	1	1.374	0.845	−0.556	1	5

Note: Std. Dev. = standard deviation; Min. = minimum; Max. = maximum.

) show that all of the variables had a normal distribution. That is, the skewness and kurtosis values for all of the variables were between the cut-off range values of ±3.3 [101]

5.5. Results of the ANOVA

A mean comparison of the variables obtained using one-way ANOVA was conducted, since all of the data had a relatively normal distribution.

The results of the one-way ANOVA test (

Table 6. Comparing means of all creative waterfront variables and user groups.

		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Creative Environment and Activities	Between groups	2.405	3	0.802	1.131	0.337
	Within groups	172.187	243	0.709
Social Cohesion	Between groups	18.629	3	6.210	4.131	0.007 *
	Within groups	365.250	243	1.503
Quality of life and Physical Comfort	Between groups	0.252	3	0.084	0.122	0.947
	Within groups	167.748	243	0.690
Protection of Culture	Between groups	4.969	3	1.656	1.790	0.150
	Within groups	224.834	243	0.925
Economic Contribution	Between groups	3.349	3	1.116	1.449	0.229
	Within groups	187.260	243	0.771
Diversity of Function	Between groups	0.852	3	0.284	0.270	0.847
	Within groups	256.012	243	1.054
Innovation and Technology	Between groups	1.825	3	0.608	0.831	0.478
	Within groups	177.937	243	0.732
Promoting Entrepreneurship	Between groups	1.277	3	0.426	0.498	0.684
	Within groups	207.817	243	0.855
Politic Support to Relevant Authorities	Between groups	0.971	3	0.324	0.343	0.794
	Within groups	229.069	243	0.943

Notes: * p < 0.05; df = degree of freedom.

) show there was only a significant difference between the responding user groups in terms of the Social Cohesion (CW_SocCo) variable. This result indicates that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ perceptions of CW_SocCo for different user groups (F (3, 243) = 4.131, p < 0.05).

In addition to the results of the one-way ANOVA test (Table 6), to understand between which groups of users there was a significant difference with respect to the Social Cohesion (CW_SocCo) variable, the results of the Tukey’s post hoc HSD test are presented in

Table 7. Tukey’s post hoc HSD test for user groups and significant variables.

Dependent Variable			Mean Difference	Std. Error	Sig.	90% CI
						LB	UB
CW_SocCo(Social Cohesion)	Creative Class	Employees & Employers	−0.149	0.216	0.901	−0.645	0.348
		Students	−0.186	0.196	0.777	−0.637	0.265
		Other	−0.839	0.240	0.003 **	−1.392	−0.286
	Employees & Employers	Creative Class	0.149	0.216	0.901	−0.348	0.645
		Students	−0.037	0.230	0.998	−0.568	0.493
		Other	−0.690	0.269	0.053 *	−1.310	−0.070
	Students	Creative Class	0.186	0.196	0.777	−0.265	0.637
		Employees & Employers	0.037	0.230	0.998	−0.493	0.568
		Others	−0.653	0.253	0.051 *	−1.236	−0.069
	Other	Creative Class	0.839	0.240	0.003 **	0.286	1.392
		Employees & Employers	0.690	0.269	0.053 *	0.070	1.310
		Students	0.653	0.253	0.051 *	0.069	1.236

Notes: * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.050; CI = confidence interval; LB = lower bound; UB = upper bound.

. These results demonstrate that there are significant differences for CW_SocCo between Creative Class (p < 0.05) and Employees & Employers (p < 0.10), and between Students (p < 0.10) and other users.

According to the results of Table 6 and Table 7, Figure 4 shows the significant differences between students and other user groups for the Social Cohesion (CW_SocCo) variable. These results reveal that Creative Class was the group of users that agreed the most with respect to CW_SocCo (mean = 2.981). Conversely, Other was the group that disagreed the most among the users (mean = 3.819). That is, the mean differences between these two groups were the largest and the most significant differences between groups of users (mean difference = 0.839). This difference for Employees & Employers (mean = 3.129) and Students (mean = 3.167) groups in comparison with the Other user group was also significant (mean differences equal 0.690 and 0.653, respectively).

In addition to the previous results, Figure 5 shows the significant differences between male and female participants relating to the Social Cohesion (CW_SocCo) variable. These results reveal that males agree more with or are neutral about CW_SocCo (mean = 3.051) than females (mean = 3.539). That is, the mean differences between these two groups are the largest and the most significant differences between genders of respondents (mean difference = 0.488).

Figure 6 shows the significant differences between respondents in the age ranges of 18–24 and 25–34 regarding the Functional Opportunities (CW_Func) variable. These results reveal that respondents in the age range of 18–24 were more agreed about CW_Func (mean = 2.016) than participants in the age range of 25–34 (mean = 2.481). That is, the mean difference between these two groups was the largest and the most significant difference between the age groups (mean difference = 0.464).

Figure 7 shows the significant differences between participants in the age ranges of 25–34 and 45–54 and between participants in the age ranges of 25–34 and 55–64 regarding the Innovation and Technology (CW_InovTech) variable. These results reveal that participants in the age ranges of 45–54 and 55–64 were more agreed about CW_InovTech (mean = 1.548 and 1.467, respectively) than participants in the age range of 25–34 (mean = 2.145). That is, the mean differences between these two groups are the largest and the most significant differences between age groups (mean difference = 0.549 and 0.679, respectively).

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Urban waterfronts are required to accommodate the needs of all users. An urban waterfront is a public space. The basic needs and quality of public places are taken into account in the creative waterfront model. Successful waterfronts provide outdoor spaces for recreation, leisure, and other activities.

It is essential to note that the design phase of creative development necessitates a commitment to an ultimate artistic vision, which is necessary for providing development purposes and encouraging local engagement. The perspective has shifted from “creativity” as a framework for pursuing progress to “creativity” as a notion for altering lives and enhancing the quality of life. Maintaining a broad vision that benefits all place users demands collaboration among various local stakeholders and typically involves collaboration among public, commercial, civil, and knowledge-based organizations. This type of extensive participation could also aid in preventing gentrification and commercialization, two prominent obstacles to the creative development of communities [102].

An evaluation framework for developing waterfronts that addresses creative environmental concerns was developed based on a literature review. It is crucial to consider various aspects of waterfront development to determine the most comprehensive and appropriate development goals [96,103,104,105,106]. The assessment principles were developed in response to a review of various locations of varying sizes, from small waterfront settlements to large coastal areas. The waterfront located in a developing state adjacent to an urban area may be the subject of observations within the study. It is important to note, however, that the framework provided here would not be appropriate for waterfront areas where there are no settlements or attempts to develop.

This study intended to examine Ancient Kyrenia Harbor from the perspective of innovative waterfront development criteria. This study indicates that a comprehensive review can provide a mechanism for addressing the broader concerns of waterfront development after a creative waterfront has emerged. The underlying variables and relative weights of creative environmental ideas and waterfront development concepts were identified and analyzed. Therefore, research has shown that waterfronts benefit from creative settings that promote productivity and innovation.

Numerous elements influence the effectiveness and viability of urban waterfronts. The principal strengths of this paper include two added objectives: the development of an assessment methodology that combines quantitative and qualitative methods; and focusing on a specific case study (Kyrenia Ancient Harbor) to test and evaluate this method.

The following principles emerged through the combination of waterfront development theory and creative environment theory in “the creative waterfront model”: people awareness, promoting entrepreneurship, creative space arrangements, creative activities, innovation and technology, tolerances, and open-mindedness, quality of life and physical comfort, political sufficiency, social cohesion, diversity of function, the creative economy and economic contribution, and protection of culture (Figure 1).

Based on observations and questionnaire with visitors, the Kyrenia Waterfront area has become much more vibrant since its transformation. The region has become a magnet for gatherings and refreshment purposes, as well as being an investment area for entrepreneurs. Indeed, more than half of the questioned users referred to the waterfront as a place with an adequate number of creative activities and events. Similarly, half of the respondents perceived the waterfront to be a creative space and a culturally valuable area with spaces for socializing opportunities and a pleasant atmosphere. In light of this, it is possible to argue that the Kyrenia Waterfront transformation has the potential to contribute adequately to the realization of innovative and novel ideas as well as to a place of active urban life because of its high cultural quality and appeal to its users, including the creative class. On the other hand, the results affirmed that physical quality, operational opportunities, and integration of innovation and technology need to be improved. The process suggests that the viewpoints of locals, visitors, and creative people should be considered in planning and design decisions to contribute to the sufficiency of creative waterfronts.

Kyrenia’s re-design and upgrade scheme could benefit from the survey results if they take a more comprehensive approach that endorses the design principles outlined in this study and provides a framework for generating practical solutions to formulate and ensure an inclusive approach to urban development. This survey could play a significant role in the design process, and its adoption would allow Kyrenia municipality to meet its objectives.

There is a scarcity of studies relating to this topic. Therefore, local and governmental authorities could use this work for the enhancement of Ancient Kyrenia Harbor. In addition, researchers could profit from researching and making decisions concerning comparable urban waterfronts. This study presents a measurement scale framework for creative waterfront development. Several metrics align well with the framework, demonstrating that variables positively influence waterfront development. Thus, it is possible to incorporate these factors in the overall design of creative waterfront environments. This analysis reveals that ports and cities can work together to guarantee that waterfront amenities are sufficient for residents, creative individuals, employees, students, and tourists. This would increase the benefit of port centers. The port-city center might also function as a nexus for the contact between the port and the city, allowing for increased cooperation on crucial matters.