be. Rather, in the primary analysis reported in the paper, we make use of the strictest definition, where an individual is considered to have secure land tenure perception if they answer _Not at all likely_ . As a robustness check, we have also replicated the analysis using looser thresholds for secure perception (as reported in Annex Table A1) and the conclusions remain consistent (results not reported).<sup>10</sup>

# **V. Results and Discussion**

The present analysis investigates the differences arising when collecting information on land tenure at different levels of aggregation and type of respondent. What are the expected effects of changing the level of aggregation and the type of respondent on the resulting measure of land tenure security? From a perspective of behavioral science, under conditions of perfect information and no misreporting, one could expect that the indicators built from proxy respondents should be similar to those estimated using self-respondents. However, perfect information is not easily attainable, and recent evidence studying biased beliefs on observable characteristics has shown that even when information is revealed ex-post, bias may persist despite information being readily available (Proto and Sgroi, 2017). Under conditions of imperfect information, there are several dimensions that may affect the likelihood of misreporting by proxy respondents. For example, someone reporting for another individual may have a misconception of his/her level of perceived land tenure security, especially if the reporting and reported individuals do not share the same gender and reside in rural contexts characterized by unequal gender conditions (Namubiru-Mwaura, 2014). With respect to the level of data collection, the level of aggregation (i.e., parcel or aggregate level) may introduce a systematic misreporting of land tenure rights. The direction and magnitude of the error stemming from aggregation is not easily predictable, as it is linked to cognitive processes that respondents employ in aggregating such information. Since the present study aims at measuring the 1.4.2 and 5.a.1 indicators, disentangling the behavioral mechanism falls beyond our scope. These mechanisms, however, are at the core of a second study based on a robust empirical analysis targeting several types of heterogeneities in misreporting (Gourlay et al., 2021).

The analysis proceeds by comparing the effect of collecting data at the aggregate level (Arm 2), through proxy respondents (Arm 3), and with both proxy respondents and aggregate-level collection (Arm 4), relative to a selfreported parcel-level approach (Arm 1), which represents the gold standard for these types of surveys. First, we investigate how the different components of land tenure security vary across treatment arms, indicating the effect of the related survey designs. Second, we present the resulting SDG indicators, both for the overall population and by gender. Finally, we examine the gender gap in the land tenure components and SDG indicators, exploring how these gaps vary with different respondent approaches and levels of land aggregation.

As the results in Table 3 suggest, the point estimates of the land tenure components, namely legal documentation, right to sell, right to bequeath, and perception of security, vary across the four treatment arms, but these differences are generally not statistically different from the means of Arm 1, with the exception of Arm 3.<sup>11</sup> Data collected

> 10 The tenure typology does not vary substantially in our data, with more than 95% of parcels reported as private tenure. Tenure type is not available for the modules where land data is collected at the aggregate level. For this reason, we have excluded disaggregation by tenure type from the analysis.

> 11 Due to an incorrect enabling condition in the CAPI application, the question asking whether a specific person’s name was included on a legally recognized document was skipped for all non-agricultural land in Arm 4. The question of whether a document exists at the household level was asked, but the follow-up question asking about a given person’s name being present on that document was not. This has the potential to bias the Arm 4 results for the estimation of SDG 1.4.2(a) and the incidence of individuals with their name on legal documentation (for the total population only, not for analysis restricted to agricultural land as for 5.a.1). However, given the low incidence of households with members who reported rights to non-

10