versus T1 localities as the added effect of including messages based on behavioral sciences principles, reminders and encouragement through proactive text messaging, and the checklist. The differences between T2 versus T0 can be interpreted as the effects of all additions combined. While our main outcome is the average number of applications submitted per locality and the average number of women per locality in those applications, which would suggest manifested interest in participating in NRM programs, we also explored how many were successful in getting their programs funded (actual participation).

The standard outreach was implemented by the agency in charge of the World Bank project and call for proposals, while the additional activities of T1 and T2 were implemented by a local research center.<sup>6</sup>

# _2.3 Data sources_

First, we used administrative data from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI) and the National Forestry Commision (CONAFOR) to extract the sociodemographic variables of localities (randomization unit and level of outcome variables). This data is primarily from the latest Population and Household Census of 2010, INEGI Land Use and Vegetation Series VI 2016, National Population Commission (CONAPO) marginalization index by locality 2010, and a private dataset of cell phone and internet coverage provided by the local research center. Outcome data was primarily extracted from the application forms received by the implementation agency of the call for proposals and aggregated at the locality level. Finally, we performed a representative survey of women living in the RCT localities to gather individual-level data of intermediate output indicators (see Section 4.2).

# _2.4 Sampling_

The call for proposals for the World Bank project was promoted and implemented in many localities across five Mexican states; however, because of budgetary reasons, we restricted our sample to two of the five states: Yucatán and Oaxaca. Morover, we only ran the RCT and collected data in a subset of the available localities in these states, choosing a sample of 113 localities<sup>7</sup> with characteristics relevant to the project and evaluation, such as the presence of forests. Nevertheless, this was not a representative sample of Mexican rural localities or of those that ultimately applied to this call for proposals (see application-level analysis).

From the 25,631 localities in the official catalog for these two states, 12,880 had locality-level sociodemographic data available in the census dataset.<sup>8</sup> We applied the filters outlined in Table 2 to the available information as part of the sampling process, also excluding localities without information

> 6 National Laboratory of Public Policy at Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE). 7 Localities are the smallest census units in Mexico. They vary widely in size and demographic characteristics. In the sample, the smallest localities had an adult population of 16 and the largest, 552, although localities can have many thousands.

> 8 The localities not included in the census have no population or have populations larger than 4,999 inhabitants.

7