Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examines how minor cultural heritage can function as a spatial resource for heritage-informed land-use planning in historic settlements. Using the traditional water heritage structure jaḥruṃhiti in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, as an empirical case, it investigates spatial, socio-cultural and infrastructural relationships. Through a mixed-methods approach combining historical inscriptions, field documentation, and GIS-based spatial analysis, the study documented 476 jaḥruṃhiti across 52 settlements, yielding 92 historical inscriptions (530 to 1936 AD). A focused case study in Patan identified 162 jaḥruṃhiti, of which 45.06% remain functionally active. Spatial analysis revealed a highly clustered network (Average Nearest Neighbour ratio = 0.616, Z = −9.35, p < 0.001) that heavily intersects with ceremonial and major walking routes. Though sites near major temples were more likely to be inactive (logistic regression, p = 0.028), implicating functional decline, the traditional guthi trust system sustains the socio-cultural and ritual continuity. The study conceptualises jaḥruṃhiti as a networked spatial heritage resource rather than an isolated object. The key planning implication is the shift from monument-centric protection to a relational, multi-scalar framework. Municipal land-use authorities need to designate ceremonial routes as heritage corridors, integrating historic water networks into a wider HUL approach that values local minor heritage. This approach bridges the gap between national monument laws and local regulations, offering a replicable model for integrating heritage into sustainable urban planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maharjan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: