_Table 6. Non-response, by gender of self-respondent_

||Sel<br>Parc|f-Respond<br>el Level (A|ent,<br>rm 1)|Self<br>Aggreg|-Respond<br>ate Level (|ent,<br>Arm 2)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Variables|Male|Female|T-test|Male|Female|T-test|
|Non-response (1=yes)|0.21|0.06|0.00|0.14|0.09|0.03|
|Non-response as out of the marz (1=yes)|0.13|0.03|0.00|0.07|0.03|0.00|
|Non-response as ill/not well (1=yes)|0.03|0.01|0.08|0.02|0.02|0.80|
|Non-response as refused (1=yes)|0.01|0.00|0.49|0.01|0.01|0.34|
|Other reason for non-response (1=yes)|0.04|0.01|0.04|0.04|0.03|0.45|

# **VI. Conclusion**

Individual-level data on land rights is essential for understanding how land rights differ by gender, as well as how those differences affect development outcomes. SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1 both require data on individual land rights, encouraging countries to relinquish previous practices of collecting household-level land data that implied an assumption of a unitary household model. However, approaches to collecting individual-level land data are varied and different methodological choices may result in biased understandings of the importance and level of land rights by gender. A growing body of literature has shown that survey design decisions on the approach to respondent selection can significantly impact estimates across a wide range of topic areas. This paper contributes to that literature by examining the implications of respondent strategy and the level of land data disaggregation on the computation of SDGs 1.4.2 and 5.a.1 and the distribution of the underlying land rights, by gender.

Using data from the Armenia Land Tenure and Area study – a study designed specifically for this analysis – we compare the implications of the use of a proxy respondent versus the recommended self-respondent approach and the use of aggregated land data versus parcel-level land data (recommended). Understanding the implications of these design decisions on data quality is critical, as household surveys generally rely on proxy respondents and may use an aggregate- or parcel-level approach depending on the nature of the survey. In this initial comparative assessment, we find that in the case of Armenia, the measurement of legally documented rights is robust to these design decisions, both for men and women, when compared to the gold standard self-respondent, parcel-level approach. This consistency in the measurement of legal documentation also translates into consistent measurement of SDG indicators 1.4.2 (a) and 5.a.1.

Land rights that are less objective in nature and potentially more difficult for proxy respondents to answer, including the right to sell, the right to bequeath, and the perception of tenure security, are more sensitive to the data collection approach. We find that collecting data at the parcel level through a proxy respondent underestimates the share of individuals holding these types of rights to a statistically significant degree. The degree of variability in these rights across treatment arms also differs by gender. The estimates for the share of men with a perception of secure tenure as measured through a proxy, parcel-level approach differ significantly from those measured by the gold standard, while women’s perception of security does not. Reviewing the gender gap between men’s and women’s rights, we find that the point estimates of the gap between the gold standard and the other treatment 18