_have the right to bequeath it, even if you need to obtain consent or permission from someone else?_ in the IHPS).<sup>15,16</sup> While the IHS4 allowed for specifying up to 4 household members and 2 non-household members as joint parcel owners/right holders in the answers to these questions, the IHPS identified joint parcel owners/right holders through subsequent questions that would be asked conditional on the respondent identifying himself/herself as a parcel owner/right holder and that would first establish the existence of other potential joint parcel owners/right holders and then identify up to 3 household members and 2 non-household members as joint owners/right holders.

Finally, another key difference between the surveys was about the land rights-related data collection. In the IHS4, following the prevailing practice, the parcel-level questions on rights to sell and bequeath were asked of the most knowledgeable household member irrespective of the answers given to the question on reported ownership of that parcel. Since the reported ownership question is phrased to refer to any individual, rather than the most knowledgeable respondent himself/herself, and is aimed at identifying all owners associated with a given parcel in one, seemingly open-ended question, it is virtually impossible to enable the later questions on the rights to sell and bequeath as a function of the answers given to the earlier, also seemingly open-ended question on reported ownership. Conversely, in the IHPS, the questions on rights to sell and bequeath were not asked of the respondent if he/she did not name himself/herself as a reported owner for a given parcel.

In terms of success of implementation, among the 2,508 IHPS households, 98.7 percent completed at least one individual interview.<sup>17</sup> While all (5,089) eligible adults were targeted for interviews, the non-response rate was 18 percent on the whole, 24 percent for adult men and 12 percent for adult women.<sup>18</sup> As discussed below, we follow a regression-based approach to compute response 15 The IHPS solicited detailed information also on the rights to use as collateral, rent out and make improvements/invest. The scope of rights included in the questionnaire was influenced by Schlager and Ostrom’s (1992) theoretical framework which focuses, in the context of natural resources, on issues related to access, withdrawal, management, exclusion and alienation while defining a bundle of rights.

16 Along with rights/ownership, the IHPS respondents reported on how each parcel was acquired; identified the individuals from whom the asset was inherited or received as a gift, as applicable; and provided the current hypothetical sales value for each asset (and the construction costs specifically for the dwelling) and limited information on their knowledge of asset transactions in their communities.

17 For the remaining 1.3 percent of households, the reasons for non-completion included (i) refusal due to the already lengthy household interview that had been completed; (ii) refusal due to the request to conduct the interviews in private, and (iii) loss of individual questionnaires due to Android tablet malfunction.

18 To get a better understanding of the additional costs of implementing individual interviews, the metadata extracted from the Survey Solutions CAPI application allow for the calculation of number of days spent in a given EA by each field team, which was made up of one team supervisor and four enumerators. On average, the field teams took a total of 3.37 days to administer the IHS4 questionnaires to 16 households in every IHS4 EA, with one enumerator visiting each household. Conversely, the same field teams took, on average, 4.51 days in an IHPS EA to ensure as much as possible that each available adult household member was interviewed in private by an enumerator of the same sex, and if possible, simultaneously with other potential interviews in the same household.

9