Back to History Current Version

Decentralizing Forest Governance: A Cluster Randomized Experiment in the Himalayas

Last registered on June 11, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Decentralizing Forest Governance: A Cluster Randomized Experiment in the Himalayas
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016090
Initial registration date
June 05, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 11, 2025, 7:11 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Name
Forrest Fleischman
Affiliation
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Forrest Fleischman
PI Affiliation
University of Minnesota
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Pushpendra Rana
PI Affiliation
Indian Forest Service
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Pooja Choksi
PI Affiliation
University of Minnesota
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Harry Fischer
PI Affiliation
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Eric Coleman
PI Affiliation
Florida State University
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Munib Khanyari
PI Affiliation
Nature Conservation Foundation
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Kulbhushan Suryawanshi
PI Affiliation
Nature Conservation Foundation
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Erin Sills
PI Affiliation
North Carolina State University
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-06-02
End date
2028-06-01
Keywords
Environment & Energy, Governance
Additional Keywords
forests, governance, political economy, restoration, conservation
JEL code(s)
Q01, Q23, Q28
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This project will evaluate two governance regimes for community-oriented forest restoration. We will conduct a cluster-randomized trial in Himachal Pradesh, India, where Mahila Mandals (women's groups) are assigned to either (i) a standard participatory model where the Forest Department retains control but consults communities, or (ii) a local autonomy model where Mahila Mandals receive funds and planting stock and make independent decisions. Key outcomes include forest cover (high-resolution satellite imagery), livelihoods (household surveys), institutional engagement, and ecological indicators (ecological surveys). The study provided actionable evidence on the best way to engage communities in forest restoration.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Choksi, Pooja et al. 2025. "Decentralizing Forest Governance: A Cluster Randomized Experiment in the Himalayas." AEA RCT Registry. June 11. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16090-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
About 300 women's groups (Mahila Mandals) will be receiving tree plantation sites under the The Rajiv Gandhi Van Samvardhan Yojana (2025) program, a scheme designed by the Forest Department ‘to strengthen conservation efforts and enhance afforestation by engaging Mahila Mandals...’. A treatment group of 150 Mahila Mandals will receive full decision-making autonomy and planting stock to manage forest restoration activities independently, while a control group of 150 Mandals will follow the status quo regime where the Forest Department retains primary decision-making authority but may consult Mahila Mandas in forest management.
Intervention Start Date
2025-06-02
Intervention End Date
2025-08-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Remotely-sensed forest cover, household livelihood outcomes
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Remotely-Sensed Outcomes: forest cover at each plantation site from satellite imagery at 3m resolution
Livelihood Outcomes: household surveys measure use of forest resources and overall household well-being

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
institutional outcomes, ecological (plantation site level) outcomes.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Institutional outcomes include indicators of participation in Mahila Mandal, sense of political efficacy and political
empowerment of individuals, and interactions with other local government institutions. These will be collected through household surveys.

Ecological outcomes focus on post tree-planting care and site maintenance as mechanisms of restoration success. These include watering frequency, weeding, fencing effectiveness, and sapling survival. These outcomes will be measured through field visits and structured ecological assessments during the early post-planting period.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study uses a cluster-randomized controlled trial design, with 300 Mahila Mandals randomly assigned to either a “local autonomy” governance treatment (n = 150) or the status quo participatory model (n = 150).
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization was done using Stata. Mahila Mandals were grouped by their forest type identifiers before random assignment. Within each stratum, Mandals were randomly assigned to treatment or control using a reproducible random number generator to enable replicability. For strata with uneven number of clusters, "misfits" were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. Out of the total 300 Mahila Mandals, 148 were allocated to the treatment group through this procedure.
Randomization Unit
Mahila Mandal (women's group)
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
300 Mahila Mandals
Sample size: planned number of observations
9000 households (approximately 30 households in a Mahila Mandal)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
150 treatment Mahila Mandals, and 150 control Mandals.
With approximately 30 households per Mandal, this makes about 3500 treatment and control observations (households).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan