based on the standard deviation among the yields obtained from five 2x2 crop cut sub-plots) was below different thresholds. These models demonstrated much higher adjusted R<sup>2</sup> values. For instance, R<sup>2</sup> adj was equal to 0.33 when using 20 percentage points as the threshold (n = 53) and 0.38 when using 10 percentage points as the threshold (n = 30). The latter model was then used to predict yields across the entire plot sample.<sup>17</sup>

# **4.4.2.3. Farmer Estimation**

Plot managers were asked to report their estimate of maize harvest at the parcel-plot-level during the post-harvest visit, replicating the design of the relevant Uganda National Panel Survey (UNPS) questionnaire modules.<sup>18</sup> Each plot manager was allowed to report production in non-standard measurement units, and was asked to report on both the condition (e.g. green harvested; dry after additional drying; etc.) and the state (e.g. with cob but without stalk or husk; grain; etc.) of up to three maize harvests that may have occurred on the plot over a period of time. The production measurement units, conditions, and states were borrowed directly from the UNPS, and are provided in Appendix IV. The dry grain-equivalent harvest quantities in kilograms were calculated in each round by using the conversion factor database that has been compiled by the UBOS during the 2007 Uganda Census of Agriculture (UCA) for each non-standard measurement unitcondition-state combination and that has been complemented by the data solicited during the UNPS 2009/10, 2010/11, and 2011/12 waves for the (rare) combinations that were not captured as part of the UCA exercise.<sup>19</sup> Moreover, in Rounds I and II, farmer-reported production information 17 The MAPS II remote sensing work program was continuing at the time of the publication of the working paper version of this manuscript. Given the limited availability of cloud-free Terra Bella imagery in 2016 (acquired mirroring the timeline of the Round I imagery acquisition), the remote sensing validation in MAPS Round II relies primarily on Sentinel-2 imagery.

18 It is important to note that the identification of parcels versus plots within parcels was anchored in the precise definitions that have been referenced above and that have been in effect since the UNPS 2009/10 wave. The operationalization of these definitions is such that each enumerator, prior to the administration of the post-planting questionnaire, has a detailed discussion with the holder regarding the organization of his/her farm. This conversation (1) ensures that the enumerator and the farmer are on the same page regarding what parcels versus plots within parcels mean, (2) often culminates in sketches of different parcels and plots within parcels that are being cultivated during that reference season, and (3) establishes how parcels and plots within parcels will be rostered in the questionnaire instrument. The established parcels and plots within parcels are then reviewed at each subsequent visit to the household.

19 The conversion factors have been made available as part of a study by Oseni et al. (2017), and can be accessed here <u>https://goo.gl/HgdbBv.</u> To calculate the dry grain-equivalent harvest quantities, we start with the UCA+UNPS augmented database that contains the kilogram value for each measurement unit-condition-state combination. We merge this file at the unit-condition-state level to each of the reported harvests on the maize plot, and multiply the reported quantity with the conversion factor to calculate an initial kg-equivalence. Further, there are two domains of raw harvest quantities – those that are reported on the cob versus those that are reported as grain. We first work in these domains separately. Within the “cob” domain, we adjust the initial kg-equivalence for all harvest quantities such that they would be reported in terms of the condition “dry, after additional drying” and state “with cob, without husk or stalk” The adjustments are precisely the conversion factor ratios within the cob domain between the preferred condition-state combination and all other observed combinations. Within the “grain” domain, we carry out a similar adjustment procedure such that all harvested quantities are expressed in terms of condition “dry after additional drying” and state “grain.” The final adjustment is for expressing the standardized harvest quantities within the cob domain in terms of condition “dry after additional drying” and state “grain.” To do this, we first compute EA-specific 14