Experiment on Measurement Error in Community Watershed Management

Last registered on January 05, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Experiment on Measurement Error in Community Watershed Management
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017437
Initial registration date
December 17, 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
January 05, 2026, 6:41 AM EST

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

Affiliation
University of Copenhagen

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Copenhagen
PI Affiliation
University of Copenhagen

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-01-20
End date
2026-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Reliable data is critical for designing, evaluating, and scaling community-based watershed management and other development interventions. Yet, most programs rely on self-reported data, which are often susceptible to misreporting, which can bias assessments of program performance and resource allocation. This study investigates the impact of training and institutional innovation interventions (technical training, leadership training and joint monitoring) on reducing misreporting (discrepancies between self-reported and field verified watershed management activities).
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Belay, Dagim , Gebreegziabher Fentahun Gugsa and Goytom Abraha Kahsay. 2026. "Experiment on Measurement Error in Community Watershed Management." AEA RCT Registry. January 05. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17437-1.0
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)
Intervention Start Date
2025-06-10
Intervention End Date
2026-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Misreporting, WUG leader-member reporting differences
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
WUG and leaders' members' incentive for reporting; knowledge on measurement of watershed practices; leader responsiveness; members' participation
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Treatments: The RCT includes 4 experimental arms: (1) technical training treatment (2) leadership training treatment (3) joint monitoring treatment and (4) control group.
1. Technical Training Treatment: The technical training was structured to enhance watershed user groups (WUG) members to accurately implement biophysical watershed management structures. Participants were trained on the design, layout and preparation of eyebrow basins, micro-basin and trenches. The training emphasized slop suitability, contour alignment, spacing and water retention capacity considerations. Participants received detailed instruction on trench preparation techniques, including appropriate depth and width, plantation pit sizing and preparation, and post-plant management practices such as watering, weeding strategies, and spacing to improve plant survival and over all site sustainability. Hands on training was conducted at demonstration sites, reflecting existing technical gaps and aligning with nationally recommended watershed management standards (Community Based Participatory Watershed Development Standards). Demonstrations and practical exercises (70% of the training) were conducted outdoors in the field, covering the step-by-step preparation of eyebrow basins, micro-basin, and trenches as well as post plant management. The training was delivered to the chairperson and three members of the WUG soil and water conservation committee in the designated treatment villages. Awareness regarding the importance of watershed management and its relevance to curve climate related challenges was also included. The training was conducted over a two-day period at central district level Framer Training Centers (FTCs) using a participatory approach that involved group discussions, practical exercises, presentations, and prepared slides and images. This treatment expected to reduce technical measurement errors in self-reported activity data and improve the quality and accuracy of watershed management implementation.
2. Leadership Training Treatment: The leadership training aims to strengthen the governance capacity of WUG executive committee members by focusing on the six core components of essential for effective and sustainable governance: leadership, planning and goal setting, inspirational leadership, participatory decision-making, accountability, and transparency. The training is delivered over two days using participatory and interactive methods such as role-playing exercises, scenario-based activities, and group discussions, facilitated and trained by experts in governance and natural resource management. Four key members of each WUG executive committee the chairperson, vice-chairperson, secretary, and finance (treasurer) participant in the training to ensure that core leadership positions are equipped with the necessary skills and tools. The treatment is expected to have multiple positive effects on WUG governance and management. It will reduce elite induced reporting errors and leader-members response discrepancies, ensuring that leaders’ response align more closely with members responses. It will strengthen internal accountability mechanisms, promote transparency in decision making processes, and encourage active participation of committee members in planning and goal setting.
3. Joint Monitoring Treatment (Joint Monitoring + Reward): The joint monitoring treatment aims to motivate watershed user groups (WUGs) to actively implement their established goals by strengthening leadership, governance, and the implementation of sustainable watershed management practices. The joint monitoring structure, comprising two active WUG members and one district-level Natural Resource Management (NaRM) expert, has already been established. In one of the joint monitoring rounds, WUG leaders, members, and experts independently complete a detailed monitoring checklist to assess performance. This checklist covers both technical aspects such as the quality and implementation of watershed management practices and governance aspects, including leadership effectiveness, group participation, transparency and accountability. By looking the individual checklist, deviations from common average. At the end of the intervention period, rewards are allocated based on a fair, evidence-based comparison of each WUG’s performance. A zonal and district-level rewards committee, composed of senior NaRM officials and district technical committee members, reviews the monitoring results to select the top-performing WUGs. Rewards include material support and public recognition, such as certificates. The treatment is expected to reduce both technical and governance-related measurement errors, improve alignment between leader and member reports, and incentivize accurate reporting and high-quality implementation of watershed management practices.
4. Control Group (Business-as-Usual): The control group continues with their existing watershed management practices without exposure to any additional training or monitoring interventions. Expected effect: This group serves as a baseline and is expected to maintain existing levels of measurement errors, providing a comparison for evaluating the causal impact of the other interventions.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization is done at office by a computer
Randomization Unit
The randomization unit is Watershed User Groups (WUGs)
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
200 WUGs
Sample size: planned number of observations
2000 households
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 WUGs (500 households) per experimental arm
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of science, University of Copenhagen
IRB Approval Date
2024-06-26
IRB Approval Number
504-0518/24-5000