on those variables.<sup>9</sup> Aftwerwards, a convenience sample was taken to reach 113 localities, accounting for feasibility considerations of the local implementer.

**Table 2. Sampling process and localities remaining in each step.**

|Samplingstep|Oaxaca|Yucatán|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|Starting point - Official list (INEGI census 2010)|13,936|11,695|25,631|
|Available locality level data (INEGI census 2010)|10,418|2,462|12,880|
|In agrarian unit with forest coverage (INEGI Land use and Vegetation 2017)|636|238|874|
|Without land conflict (INEGI census 2010)|542|178|720|
|With GSM cellphone coverage (private data)|207|115|322|
|10 adult women (18+) or more in a locality (INEGI census 2010 – also excludes<br>those without detailed data on women population)|124|39|163|
|Convenience reduction because of logistical limitations|82|31|113|

Prior to this call for proposals, localities in the sample received on average 1.48 (min = 0, max = 22) forest grants from CONAFOR<sup>10</sup> between 2007 and 2017, with 67% of localities not receiving any grants. Even though we do not have access to this indicator for localities outside the sample, this information highlights that localities included in this RCT typically had little experience with grant or government program application processes.

# _2.5 Randomization and balance_

Randomization was completed in multiple steps. First, a k-mean algorithm was implemented to create 10 groups of similar localities based on four characteristics: i) proportion of females aged three years or older who spoke an indigenous language in 2010; ii) marginalization index by locality in 2010; iii) number of CONAFOR grants for forest activities received by the locality between 2007 and 2017; and iv) proportion of adult women in the total adult population of the locality in 2010. Second, one-third of each group was randomly assigned to each of the three experimental groups, ensuring a more balanced sample. Prior CONAFOR grants help account for existing forest management capacity, the marginalized locality index (CONAPO, 2010) accounts for socio-economic level, the adult population for the number of potential applicants, and the proportion of adult women and indigenous language speakers account for prioritized groups for this call for proposals.

Finally, localities that were part of an agrarian unit (see footnote 1 for definitions) and that were assigned different experimental groups were re-randomized as a cluster to the same experimental group. The 113 localities were clustered in 84 agrarian units. Most components of the intervention were implemented at the locality level, but some aspects utilized the infrastructure of the agrarian unit, including rooms to have the informational meetings or to hang posters. The re-randomization

> 9 For example, localities that are not part of an agrarian unit are dropped when looking for forest coverage. Also, localities without data for the number of women are dropped when looking for more than 10 adult women. (The census does not include subgroup information of the population for small localities with one or two houses.)

> 10 It should be noted that the call for proposals that this RCT leverages is not part of CONAFOR. However, CONAFOR grants are similar in objective and were the best past data available.

8