In line with the conventional view that customary land rights impede agricultural development, the traditional tenure system in Nigeria has been perceived to obstruct the achievement of efficient development and agricultural transformation. This led to the Land Use Act (LUA) of 1978. As a remedial measure to the perceived inadequacy of the traditional tenure system, the act nationalized the control of all land, empowering state governors and local governments with administration and manage-ment of land.1 The act conferred on state governors the custodian right to provide use rights (i.e., the ‘right of occupancy’) for land users in their state, dissolving any possessory (freehold) rights to land which were granted by the customary system.

Despite growing consensus on the socio-economic benefits emanating from enhanced land tenure security, issues related to how best to measure it and what constitute universal indicators of tenure (in)security are poorly understood. As a result, issues of what drives tenure security are poorly understood and inconclusive. This study, thus, examines the drivers of perceived tenure insecurity in Nigeria using the Nigeria LSMS-Panel General Household Survey of 2012/13. The determinants of perceive tenure insecurity are assessed across two indicators: private (idiosyncratic) tenure risk and collective (covariate) tenure security risk. The analysis shows that perceived risks of private land dispute are higher for female-headed households, households with lower social/political connectedness, and for land parcels acquired via the traditional/customary system, in contrast to having been purchased. Private tenure risk/insecurity is also higher in communities with vibrant land market and for households that are located close to urban centers, while the opposite is the case in communities with relative ease of land access. On the other hand, collective tenure risk is lower in communities with improved economic status. Finally, signifying the need to account for intra-household dimensions in implementing land reform interventions, results from a more disaggregated analysis show that tenure security is relatively higher on female-managed plots of female-headed households, while the opposite is the case for female-managed plots of male-headed households.