A 2024 KG2 telephone survey of 402 producers examined awareness, familiarity and attitudes towards carbon farming. The findings offer five considerations for agencies
designing and evaluating producer programs. As the research focused on carbon farming, its lessons should be tested before applying them to other program areas.
1. Interest can run ahead of understanding
Producers rated the importance of managing carbon in their business at 6.7 out of 10. Their interest in generating carbon credits averaged 6.1, while familiarity with carbon farming was lower, at 4.6.
Interest does not necessarily mean producers understand what participation involves. Clear information about requirements, financial implications and ongoing commitments can help them make an informed decision.
2. Awareness does not guarantee participation
Just over half of producers (51%) were aware of the national carbon credit scheme. However, 93% had not participated in any of the five schemes and programs examined.
Awareness of two other programs was 18% and 13%, with participation in each at 1% or less. These results show why awareness and participation should be measured separately. The survey figures do not establish why participation was low.
3. Financial return was the factor named most often
When asked what would most influence their decision to join a carbon project, 35% of producers named the financial return. A better understanding of the project was mentioned by 13%, benefits to soil and land by 10%, and red tape and paperwork by 5%.
This suggests agencies should explain potential returns, costs and obligations clearly. Producers need enough information to assess how a project might fit their business.
4. Producers use different information sources and formats
The internet was the first place 41% of producers said they would look for information about carbon farming. The agriculture department was named by 14%, friends and family by 10%, and 12% did not know where they would look.
Fourteen per cent had previously dealt with a government organisation about carbon farming. Their average familiarity was 5.7 out of 10, compared with 4.5 among those who had not. This is an association; it does not show that contact with government caused greater familiarity.
In-person workshops within 100 kilometres were considered the most helpful format by 36% of producers, followed by case studies (21%) and online resources and webinars (15%). A mix of channels may better reflect how producers look for and prefer to receive information.
5. Averages can hide regional and enterprise differences
Familiarity with carbon farming ranged from 4.2 out of 10 in one region to 5.1 in another. Interest in generating credits ranged from 5.5 to 6.6.
Sheep and beef producers recorded the highest average familiarity (5.3), while grain-only producers recorded the lowest (4.0). Where sample sizes allow reliable comparisons, results by region and farm type can help agencies identify different information needs.
The survey suggests agencies should look beyond awareness when assessing producer engagement. It may be useful to understand what producers know, what they value, where they seek information and how results differ between producer groups.
These findings relate to carbon farming. Further research would be needed to establish whether the same patterns apply to other programs, such as drought support, biosecurity or natural resource management.
The findings are from a 2024 KG2 telephone survey of 402 producers about carbon farming, conducted for a government agency.
The research examined producer awareness, familiarity, attitudes and participation relating to carbon farming and carbon-related programs.