residential parcels that currently lack title (65% on state and 41% on customary land) and are willing to pay a median of about US$ 35 (ZMK 350 overall; ZMK 500 for state and ZMK 200 for customary land) to acquire formal document. Interestingly, levels of tenure insecurity for residential parcels are higher on customary (42% insecure and 26% very insecure) than on state land (37% insecure and 19% very insecure).

Panel B of table 4 shows that 91% of the 3,670 agricultural parcels are under customary tenure. While 30% of these can be transferred via bequest (with little difference between tenure regimes), 23% can be sold (31% on state and 22% on customary land). With 15% (43% on state and 12% on customary land), the share of parcels with any rights documentation remains limited. For these, the share with informal documents (6.2% ‘chief certificates’ and 4% other papers) exceeds that of those with formal documents (1.8% with complete and 3% with incomplete title). Even on state land 57% of agricultural parcels lack documentation entirely and 19% and 17%, have complete or incomplete title. More than 98% of parcels (81% on state and 100% on customary land) lack valid title and 47% of these would like to acquire title, pointing to high levels of unmet demand, especially on customary land. With mean and median willingness to pay of ZMK 791 and ZMK 350, implementing a systematic land titling program on a cost recovery basis could be an option in several locations if an appropriate legal and regulatory framework was in place.

Data on tenure insecurity suggest that, with tenure of some 43% or 25% of agricultural parcels perceived to be insecure or very insecure, levels of tenure insecurity on agricultural land are higher on state (52%) rather than customary (42%) land but that the depth of insecurity is higher on the latter (25% on customary and 23% on state land), i.e., insecurity may be more acute. Demand for title is 47% overall (47% on agricultural and 46.4% on residential parcels) among those who perceive their land rights as secure, in line with the notion that, although titles can reduce insecurity, they perform other functions (e.g., reducing the cost of transfers among strangers). Of those who perceive their rights as insecure, 51% of agricultural and 40% of residential parcels would like to acquire title, suggesting that formal title is not perceived as a panacea to deal with tenure insecurity. Substantively, this suggests that other measures to secure tenure might need to be explored. Methodologically, it implies that, in situations where access to formal documents is incomplete, adding questions on title demand could greatly increase household surveys’ policy relevance.

# **4. Regression analysis and comparison to the Prindex global poll**

Regressions for determinants of transferability, perceived tenure insecurity, and demand for title using LFS data allow us to explore heterogeneity of outcomes, including whether having title is associated with greater female decision-making. As similar regressions for Prindex data produce very different results, we discuss potential reasons in terms of data quality and use these to identify ways to improve this approach to ensure better complementarity and avoid confusion.

14