Land Modules in Household Surveys: Assessing the Gaps, Charting a Way Forward TALIP KILIC Research Economist Living Standards Measurement Study Team Poverty

Land Modules in Household Surveys: Assessing the Gaps, Charting a Way

ForwardTALIP KILIC

Research Economist Living Standards Measurement Study Team

Poverty & Inequality GroupDevelopment Research Group

The World [email protected]

www.worldbank.org/lsms

2014 World Bank Land and Poverty ConferenceMNG-24: How to Capitalize on the Data Revolution to Monitor Land Governance

Washington, DC- March 26, 2014

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.worldbank.org/lsms

Objective

• Provide an assessment of the current state of land modules in household survey questionnaires as part of an (on-going) review

• Outline the (preliminary) structure of a sourcebook on the design and implementation of ideal land modules as part of household surveys

Why Do We Care?

• To better understand…– Tenure security, investment, productivity/welfare

linkages– Nexus between land rights & individual

empowerment– Development of land markets & land allocation

dynamics– Interactions between land & credit markets

• Household surveys only tool for understanding of causal mechanisms, impacts

Main Messages

• Perfect questionnaire does not exist!

• Large data gaps, lagging regions

• Large variation in basic coverage of key domains

• Large variation in scope & methods of data collection within key domains

• Large need for guidance on questionnaire design & implementation, methodological validation to ensure cross-country comparability

Guiding Principle: Focus on Parcels & Individuals

• Identification of parcels within households…– Residential & agricultural– Owned, leased-in & leased-out– Cultivated, forests & pastures

• History of land acquisition & loss requires recall of past endowments: Feasible but not systematically done!

• Assignment of rights to HH members, non-resident relatives

• Knowledge of land laws/procedures, perception of tenure security among HH members

Starting Point for the Review: LSMS-ISA

• Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA): Household survey program led by the LSMS (www.worldbank.org/lsms-isa)

• Currently supports 8 countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda

• Primary objective: Build capacity in the design & implementation of nationally-representative, multi-topic, panel household surveys with a strong focus on agriculture– Individual- & plot-level data– Geo-referencing of household & plots– Tracking households & individuals– Open unit-record data, including geo-variables

http://www.worldbank.org/lsms-isa

Review Thus Far…• 57 surveys reviewed from low & middle-

income settings• On-going/expanding review

East Asia and the Pacific

South Asia sub-Saharan Africa

Europe and Central Asia

Latin American and

the Caribbean

Cross-country0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Before 20052005-20102010-2012Since 2012

# o

f surv

eys

On Sampling…

• Focus thus far on population-based sampling frames, household farms, common events

• Area sampling frames, large farm surveys, rare events also part of the discussion

Sample of Surveys (1)

…different levels of representativeness

Nationally and regionally

Nationally Sub-Nationally Not representative Not sure0

5

10

15

20

2523

1112

56

# o

f surv

eys

Sample of Surveys (2)

…and different types and comparability

LSMS

Gen

eral

hou

seho

ld sur

vey

(not

LSM

S)

Land

focu

s

Oth

er

Pane

l com

pone

nt

No pa

nel c

ompo

nent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

14 15

25

3

24

33

# o

f surv

eys

7 Main Content Areas for Survey Questions


1. Plot characteristics & mode of acquisition2. Formal & informal rights3. Land investments4. Lease market participation5. Sale market participation6. Perceived tenure security, history of land

disputes7. Knowledge & perception (individual)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2%

63%

37%

12% 14%

42%

68%

Complete gap in coverage, by content area





1. Plot Characteristics & Mode of Acquisition

• Standard– Location (GPS)– Area (GPS)– Type of use– Date of acquisition– Mode of acquisition

• Expanded– Household members making use decisions– Physical demarcation– Hypothetical sales/rental value

Self-reported only Self-reported and GPS0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5047

9

# o

f surv

eys

Note: N= 56 surveys

Note: 1 survey on land tenure perception was excluded as it did not include any measurement of land area

Plot Area: Self-Reported vs. GPS

None One Two Three Four Five (all) One Two All standard and expanded0

5

10

15

20

25

30

5

13

17

13

45

25

17

0

# o

f surv

eys

“Standard” criteria “Expanded” criteria

Surveys that meet “expanded” criteria only meet partial “standard” criteria. There are no surveys that meet all

seven criteria for “expanded”.

All five of these surveys are LSMS-ISA

Zero!

1. Plot Characteristics & Mode of Acquisition




2. Formal & Informal Rights

East Asia and the Pacific

(N=11)

South Asia(N=7)

sub-Saharan Africa

(N=31)

Europe and Central Asia

(N=4)

Latin American and

the Caribbean (N=2)

Cross-country(N=2)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

91%

57%

48%

100% 100%

50%

Complete gap in topic coverage, by region

Note: N= 57 surveys

2. Formal & Informal Rights

• Documents: spatial/contextual elements, hierarchical

• Willingness to pay for updated formal documents (individual-specific)

• Time, money spent trying to secure formal rights (individual-specific)

• Five rights, identification of individuals associated w/ each– Bequeath, Sell, Rent Out, Use as Collateral, Make

Improvements– Within & outside household identification of individuals– Who answers matters, on-going methodological research

Messy?

None

Right

to sel

l par

cel

Right

to u

se la

nd

as col

late

ral

Right

to sel

l par

cel

and

right

to u

se

land

as c

olla

tera

l

Right

to sel

l par

cel

and

plan

t tre

es

Right

to sel

l par

cel

and

two

othe

r rig

hts

Ever

ythi

ng b

ut tr

ees

Ever

ythi

ng b

ut

colla

tera

l All 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4036

3 2

7

1

42 1 1

# of

Surveys




3. Land Investments

• Capturing stock & flow– Labor input vs. cash/in-kind

expenditures– Trees: Number of trees at point X,

number of trees planted, number of trees now

• Residential land vs. agricultural land

3. Land Investments• Standard

– Any protective investments (fences, etc.) & timing

– Stock of investments at a particular point in time

– Any investments made in a specified time period

• Expanded– Flow of productive investments,

differentiating between labor & cash/in-kind inputs

3. Land Investments

None

One

Tw

o

Thre

e (

all)

One (

all)

All

standard

and e

xpanded

Standard criteria Expanded criteria

0

10

20

30

40 34

23

91 3 0

Criteria for standard and expanded questionnaires

Nu

mb

er

of

surv

eys

Zero!

Surveys that met some

“expanded” criteria only met partial,

if any, “standard”

criteria.

3. Land Investments

81%(N=46)

11%(N=6)

8%(N=5)

Coverage of investments on trees and capture of stock &

flow

No question about if trees were planted

Captured stock & flow

Did not capture stock & flow

• 11 surveys (19%) asked if trees had been planted in a specific time frame

• Of these, 6 surveys collected stock & flow information: • Number of trees

currently• Number of trees

planted

3. Land Investments

Amount spent

# days spent

Amount spent on terracing

# days spent

Amount spent

# days spent

Trees Terracing Bunds

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

Non-residential land investments

3. Land Investments A

mo

un

t sp

en

t

# d

ays

spe

nt

Am

ou

nt

spe

nt

on

te

rra

cin

g

# d

ays

spe

nt

Am

ou

nt

spe

nt

# d

ays

spe

nt

Am

ou

nt

spe

nt

# d

ays

spe

nt

Am

ou

nt

spe

nt

# d

ays

spe

nt

New buildings Adding stories Adding rooms Roof Utility im-provements

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%

Residential land investments

>>




4. Lease Market Participation

• Standard– Size of land leased in or out– Date for start of lease– Rental agreement (type, amount)

• Expanded– Landlord/tenant attributes (relationship,

occupation, gender)– Formality of contract

4. Lease Market Participation

Whet

her la

nd was

rente

d out

Value

of re

nt rec

eive

d

Value

of re

nt and

info

rmat

ion a

bout t

enan

ts

Whet

her la

nd was

rente

d in

Value

of re

nt paid

Value

of re

nt and

info

rmat

ion a

bout l

andlo

rd

05

101520253035404550

3431

15

44

36

23

# o

f surv

eys

Note: Information about landlord/tenant may include relationship, location, number, and/or gender.

Note: N= 57 surveys

Leased-out Leased-in

3 of these surveys collect

information about tenant's

gender

3 of these surveys collect

information about landlord’s

gender




5. Sales Market Participation• Standard

– Date of transfer– Reason for sale– Location of land– Size of land– Cash/land amount received in return

• Expanded– Purchaser/seller attributes (relationship, gender,

location)– Land surveyed, sale registered (cost of

formalities)

None One Two Three Four Five (all) One Two All standard and expanded

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

34

4 43

7

1

10

10

# o

f surv

eys

5. Sales Market Participation

“Standard” criteria“Expanded” criteria

Surveys that meet “expanded” criteria only meet partial “standard”

criteria. There are no surveys that meet all seven criteria

for “expanded”.

Zero!




6. Perceived Tenure Security & Land Dispute History

General household survey (non-LSMS)

(N=14)

LSMS(N=15)

Land-focus survey (N=25)

Other(N=3)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

50%53%

32% 33%

Complete gap in topic coverage, by survey type

Note: N= 57 surveys


• Standard– Confidence to not lose plot within X years– History of involuntary land loss– Ever concerned about dispute (type) on plot

• Expanded– Ever had dispute on the plot


no

ne

On

e

Tw

o

Th

ree

(a

ll)

On

e (

all)

All

sta

nd

ard

an

d

exp

an

de

d

Standard criteria Expanded criteria

0

10

20

30

40 34

22

8

1

21

1

Criteria for perceptions of tenure se-curity

Nu

mb

er

of

surv

eys

Surveys that met some “expanded” criteria only met

partial, if any, “standard” criteria.


No mention of land dispute history

History of land dispute (but no date)

Year of land dispute Year AND month of land dispute

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

36

117

3

# o

f surv

eys

Note: N= 57 surveys

Land dispute history, detail of data collection




7. Knowledge & Perception Questions

• Standard– Y/N questions on key legal provisions (consent for

sales, inheritance)– Procedures/institutional responsibilities (registration,

first instance of appeal)– Trust in/impartiality of land administration institutions

• Expanded– Y/N questions on land/use provisions– Introduction of new land laws

7. Knowledge & Perception Questions

No kn

owle

dge

ques

tions

Knowle

dge

ques

tions

No pe

rcep

tion

ques

tions

Perc

eptio

n qu

estio

ns

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

43

14

44

13

Ten of these surveys

disaggregate knowledge

assessment by gender

Five of these surveys

disaggregate perception

assessment by gender

Recapping

• Perfect questionnaire does not exist!

• Large data gaps, lagging regions

• Large variation in basic coverage of key domains

• Large variation in scope & methods of data collection within key domains

• Large need for guidance on questionnaire design & implementation, methodological validation to ensure cross-country comparability

Lighting a Candle

• On-going review to form a basis for a sourcebook on the design & implementation of land modules in HH surveys– Joint collaboration of DECPI-LSMS & DECAR– Target audience: National statistical agencies, survey

practitioners, researchers, policymakers– Benefit insights from LSMS methodological research

program on improving measures & analysis of agricultural productivity

– First step in thinking about cross-country comparability

• Recommendations to benefit on-going LSMS survey operations, particularly as part of LSMS-ISA

Final Thoughts

• LSMS part of a much larger landscape, time-sensitive agenda

• Importance of partnerships, stakeholder coordination

• Revisit standard vs. expanded distinction– Consider light/standard/expanded, re-think the scope in

each, propose further cuts depending on the purpose

• Global discussions around available & comparable data need to take into account country-level dynamics

• TA for design & implementation of ideal land modules needs to be hand-in-hand with TA to improve analytical capacity

Land Modules in Household Surveys: Assessing the Gaps, Charting a Way

ForwardTALIP KILIC

Research Economist Living Standards Measurement Study Team

Poverty & Inequality GroupDevelopment Research Group

The World [email protected]

www.worldbank.org/lsms

2014 World Bank Land and Poverty ConferenceMNG-24: How to Capitalize on the Data Revolution to Monitor Land Governance

Washington, DC- March 26, 2014

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.worldbank.org/lsms