As shown in the flow diagram, the cause-effect chain explaining the generation of additional financial revenue or flows for beneficiaries of RCT processes is long, and it is difficult to isolate the effect of the project on obtaining these impacts. In this case the increase in property value, as mentioned for the economic CBA, cannot be used because it does not represent a financial flow for the beneficiaries.

If conditions existed for carrying out the F-CBA at household level, a survey would need to be applied to a representative sample of households to establish the baseline (ex ante) and then another survey in the ex post phase. Using the quasi-experimental evaluation method (see module 4) or the double difference method, the net revenue obtained by beneficiary households due to the effect of the project would be estimated.

To do this, the following would be compared:

• First difference: the difference in revenue for beneficiary households, before and after RCT processes;
• Second difference: the difference in revenue for a comparable control group of households (which were not beneficiaries but were also in a situation of insecure tenure) ex ante and ex post.

However, and as explained in Module 4, in practice the measurement of the increase in net revenue at household level is complex and not always reliable because:

• The cause-effect chain which connects the strengthening of tenure rights to the generation of revenue is long and may require a longer period than the project cycle and/or special conditions that mean that some families can realize benefits while others cannot (because their properties are better located, because the household members have greater experience in business, etc.);
• The measurement of family revenue, in particular in a rural setting, is a complex exercise because members may have different sources that are subject to change from year to year due to production cycles and also to migrations;
• In an ex ante situation, it may be difficult to obtain the necessary information to find out who will be potential beneficiaries of RCT processes (because there is often no legal diagnosis of tenure) and thus to be able to set up a sample that will really be representative of the set of households that are LAP beneficiaries.

For this reason and as mentioned in Module 4, it is advisable to carry out an evaluation at household level with an experimental or quasi-experimental type design, which reliably collects intermediate indicators useful for measuring changes in line with the causal chain of RCT processes:

• Access to funding sources (in particular mortgage loans where land is used as collateral)
• Access to public services and infrastructure
• The perception of security of tenure
• The perception of increased property value

A further alternative given the complexity of applying surveys at household level and using quasi-experimental or experimental methods can be the creation of case studies.
Though usually limited by the number of observations, case studies can generate qualitative measurements useful for understanding the phenomena contributing to or generating obstacles to households having access to the benefits of RCT processes. This type of evaluation is particularly recommended when LAPs are midway through their implementation.