We present the library in 7 sections, which you can think of as the library shelves! Each section corresponds to a thematic area in the measurement of land rights and governance. In brief, (i) proofs of ownership concerns the documents, papers and other evidence that landholders may have; (ii) access to land and de-facto rights unveils the actions that ‘can’ and ‘cannot’ be pursued by determined actors in practice; (iii) perceptions on rights examines tenure security and insecurity; (iv) land titling captures beliefs and experiences with land titling programmes; (v) community rules revolves around the land governance of either private or community land (vi) land disputes and justice enquires past conflicts and resolution mechanisms. Finally, (vii) distance between de-jure and de-facto land rights measures awareness and assessment of legal land rights, and how the law recognises de-facto rights. This cataloguing effort is the result of an iterative process, going back and forth from the questionnaire to the library structure, and it is by no means final nor exhaustive.
Want to learn more about the 7 thematic areas? –Read their description below.
THE SEVEN CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS
Questions in this group examine the variety of ways in which land ownership can be evidenced in questionnaires. They outline approaches ranging from identifying formal ownership documents to recognising informal or de facto proofs, and highlight challenges when terms like “documents” or “papers” are left undefined. They consider strategies that list accepted types of evidence, as well as questions addressing whose names appear on records, including non-household members or joint owners. This category also covers the collection of supplementary information, such as plot size or document condition, and instances where respondents are asked to present documents or explain their unavailability.
Questions in this group explore the different ways questionnaires assess how people access land and develop de facto rights. They cover questions on past or present actions linked to a plot, modes of land acquisition, and recognition of various tenure types. They also consider how surveys capture the complexity of ownership arrangements, including joint and non-household actors. Beyond factual reporting, some instruments examine the “bundle of rights” by asking about specific actions respondents can take with land, whether these require collaboration or permission, and from whom. This analytical category also addresses perceived limitations on rights arising from social norms or personal choice.
Questions in this group examine people’s perceived security of land tenure, independent of any formal rights. They include questions to estimate respondents' likelihood of involuntarily losing ownership or usage rights over specific timeframes, often using scaled responses. Some tools explore how these perceptions change over different periods, while others investigate underlying reasons and the actors or circumstances involved. Additional approaches introduce nuanced or sensitive scenarios, such as changes in tenure due to household events, to elicit responses. A few questionnaires also consider the potential impacts that these perceptions have on people’s decisions and investments.
Questions in this group addresse land titling processes, with a focus on both opinions and experiences. Opinion-based questions explore respondents’ understanding of land titles, their perceived importance, and how titles might influence feelings of tenure security. They may also assess willingness to obtain a title, willingness to pay for it, and perceived benefits or costs of formalisation. Other questions investigate participation in titling processes, beginning with whether respondents have engaged in them and examining the process’s duration, costs, actors, and challenges. Finally, some surveys assess the actual benefits and costs experienced by households that have successfully acquired land titles.
Questions in this group examine how communities organise around land issues, particularly in contexts where local rules and customs are significant. Questions may address shared land uses and infrastructure, collective ownership arrangements, and governance structures for community land management, including the roles of various actors and participation by different groups. Some surveys investigate contributions—monetary or labour—to communal resources, as well as the existence and enforcement of rules for managing the commons. Others explore community perspectives on these regulations and traditional practices affecting private land, focusing on what members can or cannot do in specific situations according to local norms and customs.
Questions in this group examine land conflicts, highlighting their role in exposing underlying power dynamics. They often address the occurrence, frequency, and intensity of disputes, followed by exploration of their causes, the parties involved, and specific cases such as eviction, expropriation, or dispossession. Another focus is on conflict resolution, covering the process’s duration, required efforts, and actors involved, including both formal and informal mechanisms. Some instruments investigate conflict escalation, perceived fairness, and the plaintiff’s agency, satisfaction, and willingness to repeat the process. Finally, questionnaires may assess the broader consequences of disputes, capturing both material outcomes and their social or emotional impact.
Questions in this group address the gap between formal legal frameworks and the actual practice of land rights, drawing on both resident and expert perspectives. Resident-focused questions examine knowledge of legally recognised rights, awareness of gender-based differences, opinions on the functioning of the legal system, and views on customary versus statutory law. They may also assess perceptions of policy changes, enforcement capacity, and suggested reforms. Expert-focused questions explore the scope of legally recognised rights, their implementation in practice, and the accessibility and efficiency of titling processes. Additional items assess the recognition of informal rights, indigenous claims, and informal dispute resolution mechanisms.