the omission of certain categories. Beegle et al. (2012) found that using a collapsed, or aggregated, list of consumption items results in significantly lower estimates of total consumption relative to the gold standard for measuring consumption (a personal diary with frequent supervision). On the contrary, research on the measurement of microenterprise profits by de Mel, McKenzie, and Woodruff (2009) concluded that asking respondents about profits in aggregate, as opposed to asking several detailed questions on revenues and expenses, resulted in more precise estimates of profits. The degree and direction of bias introduced by the aggregation of land to the individual level in the measurement of tenure rights remains an open empirical question.

Using data from the Armenia Land Tenure and Area (ALTA) study and in the context of land tenure rights, this paper addresses questions on: (i) the data quality implications associated with respondent strategy; (ii) the data quality implications associated with level of data collection; (iii) the interaction of biases stemming from the use of proxy respondents and aggregated level data collection, as relevant; and ultimately, (iv) the implications of these design decisions on the computation and monitoring of SDGs 1.4.2 and 5.a.1.

The ALTA study was implemented with the technical guidance of the lead author by the International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education (ICARE) in partnership with the Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia (ArmStat) and with the financial support of the 50x2030 Initiative. ALTA included 1,200 scientifically sampled households which were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms, each of which received a specific version of the land tenure module differing by respondent approach and level of data collection. This experimental design provides a unique opportunity to identify the biases resulting from these particular survey design choices and the implications for SDG indicator computation.

Findings from this study will inform future survey design around these particular SDG indicators and land tenure data in general, as well as alert policy makers to the implications of SDG reporting using various survey design approaches. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to address questions around the feasibility and validity of land tenure data collected in aggregate vis-à-vis the parcel level and will contribute to the growing literature on respondent approaches, particularly as related to individual land tenure.

The paper is organized as follows: section II describes the land tenure system in Armenia, providing context for the results that follow; Section III describes the ALTA study design and data; Section IV discusses SDG indicator computation and methods; Section V presents the results; and Section VI concludes.

# **II. Armenian Land Tenure System**

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Republic of Armenia became independent, implementing numerous reforms in the process of transitioning to a liberal economy. Agricultural land was considered to be the starting point for privatization, with subsequent reforms following suit in other sectors of the economy. The legal agrarian reforms were enacted through a number of laws, including "On Property in the Republic of Armenia" adopted by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia (October 1990), "On Rural and Rural Collective Farms" (adopted January 1991), "On Enterprises and Entrepreneurial Activity in the Republic of Armenia" (adopted March 1992), “RA Land Code” (adopted January 1991), and several other laws and by-law acts. This legislation resulted in a new agrarian land tenure system beginning in March 1991 which converted the approximately 900 previously existing collective farms, state farms, and inter-economic enterprises into a large number of smaller family farms. The conversion of state land into private land was conducted in such a way that each village family was given a number of land units, dependent on the number of household members (one unit of land for families with three or fewer members, two units of land for families with four to six members, and 4