through Arm 3, using the proxy respondent, parcel-level questionnaire approach, results in a statistically significant underestimation of the share of individuals reporting the right to sell, the right to bequeath, and a perception of secure tenure (Table 3).<sup>12</sup> For example, when comparing Arm 1 to Arm 3, the share of respondents reporting the right to bequeath land decreases from 40 to 29 percent. The incidence of legal documentation, however, remains statistically stable across all arms, including Arm 3. In general, the observed differences in the incidence of land tenure rights under Arm 3 is particularly important, as the parcel-level proxy respondent approach is commonly employed in agricultural surveys.

These same dimensions measured through the questionnaire collecting data at an aggregate level and with selfresponse (Arm 2) results in point estimates slightly above the ones of Arm 1, but the difference in means is not significant. When using a questionnaire collecting data at an aggregate level but using proxy respondents, point estimates are slightly lower than the gold standard of Arm 1, but again are not statistically different. These observed differences in point estimates may have implications when comparing individual land rights across time or space (e.g., across countries) if the surveys being compared employed different approaches to data collection.

Figure 2 illustrates the sub-indicators for 1.4.2 and 5.a.1 by arm alongside their respective 95 percent confidence intervals. In terms of tenure security for the overall population, approximately 60 percent of individuals are considered to have secure tenure rights as measured in Arm 1, according to indicator 1.4.2 (a), which is based on legally recognized documentation. The same sub-indicator decreases when obtained through Arm 3 and Arm 4, while it slightly increases for Arm 2, although the means are not significantly different than those estimated through Arm 1. Indicator 1.4.2 (b), based on perception of land tenure security, shows more variation across arms – Arm 3 estimates 22 percent of individuals perceive their land tenure to be secure, which is significantly different from the Arm 1 estimate of 33 percent of individuals. For 5.a.1 (a), we estimate a higher share of land-secure individuals when comparing the aggregate-level approach (Arms 2 and 4) to the gold standard, and a lower share of landsecure individuals using Arm 3. However, these differences from Arm 1 are not statistically significant. Similarly, there are no statistically significant differences in the estimates of 5.a.1 (b) between Arms 2, 3, 4 and Arm 1.

In operational terms, if financial or technical reasons require survey practitioners to select an aggregated approach using proxy respondents, our findings suggest that in the case of Armenia, the errors stemming from aggregation and proxy respondent bias appear to compensate for each other, specifically in the construction of SDG 5.a.1, which takes an ‘either/or’ approach to indicator construction (that is, if an individual has legally recognized documentation or the right to bequeath or the right to sell, they are considered secure). This finding may be specific to contexts like Armenia, where documentation rates are relatively high. The significant trade-offs in terms of the analytical value of parcel-level versus aggregate-level land data must also be carefully considered if opting for the Arm 4 questionnaire.

agricultural land only, and the consistency observed between the findings of total land and agricultural land only (which is not impacted by the error), we believe the potential bias to be negligible. At the household level, only 3 households of all 301 in Arm 4 reported rights to non-agricultural land only (including a total of 7 women and 5 men). At the individual level, in total, 21 adults (7 men and 14 women) reported rights to non-agricultural land only, of which 3 (women) reported there was no document for the relevant land, leaving a total of 18 individuals, or 1.5% of the adults sampled in Arm 4, with an uncertain “name on document” status.

> 12 Table 3 summarizes the various land tenure components of the two indicators by arm for the total sample population, while results for the agricultural population (and agricultural land in particular) are presented in Table A2 of Annex II.

11