Can Regulation Save Angkor Wat?

A couple of months ago, I attended a conference in the Cambodian City of Siem Reap. Naturally during the stay, I and some colleagues visited the ancient city and religious complex of Angkor Wat and was impressed not only with the scale of that cultural edifice but also with the degree of scientific knowledge that led to the construction of a building that precedes by centuries Asia's most valued structure, the Taj Mahal. 

Thereafter, I took some readings, watched a documentary speculating on the both the purpose and the religious leaders who brought the construction to its height. All this while, I wondered how to justify the inclusion of those pictures on a blog dedicated to the discussion of applied economics and public affairs.

It appears now that I need not have worried because Ben Doherty of the Guardian states that the Angkor Wat complex is threatened because of the illegal extraction of water by corporations. As it is, the land on which the complex is based is an original swampy area that enabled the planting of rice from the reverse flow of melted glaciers of the Himalayas. Rising number of tourists is creating a demand for more water whose extraction from the ground threatens the foundation of the ancient religious city.

Wearing my thinking cap, this situation illustrates once gain the fact that tourist receipts that are arguably helping to fund the conservation of the complex have the unintended consequence of leading to water extraction whose longer term effects are yet unknown. there's no clear policy response here save to estimate the amount of water extracted and charge hotels and other establishments for that extraction since the state owned corporation is unable to supply sufficient water. Regulation here is necessary and a sensible reaction because the businesses that thrive in Siem Reap rely to a large extent on the enormous tourist appeal of the Angkor Wat complex. The number of visitors is impressive but I am certain that Ben Doherty has got the population of Siem reap right because I assessed it at far more than 200,000 people.