Opinions and Knowledge About Drought Among Young People in Krakow (Southern Poland)

Abstract

Recurrent droughts in Poland necessitate an increase in public awareness regarding their causes, consequences, and mitigation strategies. Education plays a crucial role in this process. The aim of this study was to analyze the knowledge and opinions of primary school students and university students from Krakow regarding drought. To assess their understanding, a survey was conducted, including multiple-choice questions and Likert-scale-based questions. A comparative analysis was performed to identify differences between the two groups, focusing on the relationship between the level of education and drought awareness. This study highlighted the need to intensify climate education at both the school and university levels. Furthermore, it emphasized the necessity of broader discussions on the risks associated with extreme weather events (including droughts) and the importance of actively supporting youth engagement in climate-related initiatives.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Impact of Drought on the Economy, Society, and the Environment in the Context of Climate Change

Water is a fundamental element of life on Earth—it is essential for drinking, irrigating fields, producing food, and sustaining ecosystems. Without it, the functioning of living organisms, agriculture, industry, and the entire economy would be impossible. However, both its excess and deficiency can pose threats that, under certain conditions, may lead to floods or droughts, resulting in significant economic losses. One of the consequences of climate change is the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, such as prolonged and intense droughts, which have a serious impact on ecosystems, agriculture, and water resources worldwide [1]. As emphasized by Naumann et al. [2], in Europe, the damages caused by drought may significantly increase with global warming. Naumann et al. [2] estimate that the annual economic losses due to drought in the European Union amount to EUR 9 billion per year. Forzieri et al. [3] indicate that the effects of drought create a complex network of interdependencies that affect many sectors of the economy—from agriculture and livestock farming to water supply, energy, tourism, human health, transportation, and biodiversity. Adapting to climate change, in order to mitigate its negative effects on the economy, society, and environment over the next two decades, will require investments amounting to EUR 25 billion, which represents 0.9% of the gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) value for the European Union in 2010. Additionally, the annual operating and maintenance costs of the proposed solutions are estimated at around EUR 2 billion [3]. Addressing the effects of drought is one of the main priorities of climate policy—not only globally and in the European Union but also in individual countries such as Poland. As early as 25 years ago, the European Union developed the Water Framework Directive, which outlines further actions in water management [4]. In Poland, according to the Water Law Act [5], drought protection is carried out in accordance with drought mitigation plans, which include, among others, a catalog of actions aimed at reducing drought-related losses in the country [6].

1.2. Drought Phases and Their Characteristics

The rising occurrence of drought worldwide represents one of the most severe natural phenomena, with potentially catastrophic consequences for communities, their food security, and their livelihoods. Drought is a process encompassing three main phases: atmospheric drought, soil drought, and hydrological drought [7,8]. Many authors additionally distinguish a fourth phase in the development of drought—socio-economic drought [9,10]. The initial stage is meteorological drought, which results from a prolonged deficit or complete lack of precipitation. If this period continues and is accompanied by high air temperatures, intensive evaporation of water from the soil and surface waters leads to a decrease in soil moisture, and meteorological drought gradually transforms into soil drought. The lack of sufficient water in the soil also hinders the uptake of essential nutrients by plants, which can ultimately reduce both the quantity and quality of crop yields (this stage is sometimes referred to as agricultural drought). Continued lack of precipitation causes groundwater levels to drop, reducing the inflow of water into rivers—this marks the next phase of the drought process: hydrological drought, which is often associated with streamflow drought.

1.3. The Effects of Climate Warming—In Poland and Worldwide

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2015 was the warmest since 1961 [11]. However, the following years proved to be equally warm, with some even being warmer; in 2021, the WMO [12] identified 2016, 2019, and 2020 as the hottest years on record. Unfortunately, the subsequent years were extremely dry, particularly 2023, which was recognized as the driest year in the past three decades, during which glaciers experienced the greatest mass loss in 50 years. According to recent studies, the WMO [13] identified the last ten years as the warmest on record and confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year in the history of meteorological observations [14,15]. The global average temperature in 2024 exceeded 1.5 °C above the pre-industrial average from 1850 to 1900 [16]. Based on the Köppen–Geiger climate classification, most of Poland’s climate is classified as Cfb (Marine West Coast Climate), including the area where the city of Krakow is located. The eastern regions fall under the Dfb classification (Humid Continental Climate) [17].

Recent years have also been exceptionally warm in Poland. According to the Meteorological Yearbook [18], the average annual air temperature across Poland in 2023 was 10.1 °C, which was 0.6 °C higher than the previous year and 1.4 °C above the long-term average for 1991–2020. The warmest regions in 2023 were the western and southwestern parts of the country, where the annual average air temperature exceeded 10.5 °C in many places [1]. Analyzing the monthly average air temperature values in Poland, it is evident that 2023 confirms the ongoing thermal climate changes in the country, characterized by warm winters, cool early springs, hot summers, and early autumns [15]. In 2023, Poland experienced the warmest September in many years—the average air temperature that month was 17.6 °C, which was 3.9 °C above the long-term average, and in stations located in the western part of the country, the average temperature in September exceeded 18.5 °C.

The year 2024 was particularly notable in Poland—it saw both drought and flooding [1]. The average air temperature in Poland in 2024 was as high as 10.9 °C, which was 2.2 degrees higher than the long-term annual average (climatological normal period 1991–2020) [19]. From May to August, precipitation levels across most of the country were below the long-term average, and the occasional heavy but short-lasting rains were insufficient to offset the preceding water deficit, especially as exceptionally high temperatures intensified evaporation processes. The 2024 drought particularly affected the western and southwestern regions of Poland, but agricultural drought was observed across the entire country between 21 April and 20 June 2024, leading to at least a 20% reduction in crop yields compared to average weather conditions [19]. In September, conversely, heavy rainfall, particularly in the southwestern regions of Poland, caused a rise in water levels in the Oder River and the Nysa Kłodzka River, eventually leading to flooding.

Poland’s water resources—both surface and groundwater—are relatively limited compared to other European countries. The average annual surface water outflow, including inflows from abroad, between 1990 and 2023 was 57.1 km³, with 50 km³ originating from within the country, which translates to about 1500 m³ of water resources per capita per year. In contrast, most European countries enjoy more than 5000 m³ per capita annually [20].

1.4. Review of Survey Studies on Drought

In the face of increasingly frequent droughts in Poland, it is extremely important for the entire society to possess basic knowledge about this phenomenon, its consequences, and everyday actions that can contribute to the conservation of water—a resource that is becoming increasingly scarce. The media and education play a significant role in raising public awareness about the threats related to climate change (including drought), and many researchers note that they have a particular influence on shaping pro-environmental attitudes from an early age. The media plays a key role in raising climate awareness by linking scientific knowledge with institutions and society [21]. As stated by the Center for Civic Education in its 2020 report, young people primarily acquire knowledge about the greenhouse effect and climate change from online news portals (over 55% of respondents), as well as from social media and television (42% each). The media—particularly social media—plays a crucial role in shaping the public’s climate awareness [22]. A study conducted by Elroy et al. [23], based on the analysis of 333,635 tweets concerning anthropogenic climate change, indicates that platforms like Twitter (now X) serve not only as channels of information but also as spaces where a multifaceted debate on climate change is actively taking place.

In this context, key questions arise: Is climate change education for children and youth effective? Do young people know what causes drought and how it can be mitigated? These questions were among the reasons for conducting the survey studies whose results are presented in this article.

Public opinion studies on drought are commonly conducted in countries facing water scarcity issues. Examples include surveys by Bareki et al. [24] on farmers’ drought preparedness in South Africa and studies by Aldunce et al. [25] in central Chile. The results showed that the subjective perception of drought strongly correlates with objectively observed drought in those regions, and respondents most often referred to agricultural (soil) drought or socio-economic drought definitions. Many respondents associate drought with prolonged lack of precipitation (for example, farmers from Balochistan [26] and from Oklahoma and New Mexico [27]), insufficient soil moisture (farmers from northeastern Thailand [27]), periods of reduced crop yields, and lower water levels in reservoirs and rivers (farmers from Australia [28]). In countries with a rainy season, respondents often associate drought with the absence of rain during that period [29,30]. The consequences of drought are severe, including crop failures, water shortages in surface reservoirs, and pastureland degradation [31]. Some drought and climate change awareness studies have also addressed water conservation practices. For example, respondents in a study by Dessai et al. [32] (England and southern UK) reported preferring showers over baths and avoiding leaving the tap running while brushing their teeth.

Some surveys asked whether respondents noticed the occurrence of drought in their region or experienced reduced water availability in their area (in Australia [33] and in Texas [34]). Many respondents admitted noticing these issues and reported taking actions to protect water resources. However, among farmers living in nine southern U.S. states, the majority did not report a decrease in local water availability. Many respondents indicated that increasingly frequent and intense droughts are caused by climate change [25,35,36]. Similar views are held by younger generations, including geography students at Kent State University, who in surveys conducted by Phillips et al. [37] recognized the influence of climate change on the frequency, intensity, and duration of droughts. Likewise, the vast majority of students at American College [38] acknowledged the impact of climate change and expressed concern about its consequences. These studies showed that students were aware of the role of human activity in contributing to these changes.

Research also indicates that the level of knowledge about climate change is strongly dependent on education. Harker-Schuch and Bugge-Henriksen [39] conducted a study among high school students in Austria and Denmark before and after a lecture on climate change, showing that after the lecture, students gave more correct answers, and their awareness of personal responsibility for climate change increased. Meanwhile, Christiansen et al. [40] developed a tool to assess students’ beliefs, intentions, and attitudes toward the environment, with a special focus on climate change. This tool can be used by teachers to monitor changes in student attitudes before and after educational interventions and to analyze differences across various student groups.

Kaczała [41] conducted research on drought risk perception among farmers in Poland, especially in drought-prone areas. The results indicate that a higher perception of drought risk depends on factors such as a higher level of education, higher monthly income from agricultural activities, or losses in yields or income due to drought in the previous year.

A sense of agency—that is, the belief in one’s ability to influence the reduction in climate change effects—is an important factor shaping youth attitudes. Research by Deng et al. [42] shows that few students (in their third year of high school) believe their actions can significantly impact drought mitigation. On the other hand, Huxster et al. [43] found that membership in pro-environmental organizations is associated with a higher level of climate change knowledge, while Shaely et al. [44] observed that introducing climate change topics into the school curriculum does not always lead to greater acceptance of the scientific consensus on the matter. The research suggests that social context and teaching methods are also important factors in high school environmental education.

1.5. Climate Education in the Polish Education System

The curricula of Polish primary schools include topics related to climate and extreme weather events, which are covered in various subjects. According to the core curriculum, general education in primary school (grades 1–8) aims, among other things, to teach children how to care for the natural environment, including the climate—both on a local and global scale [45]. According to the Regulation of the Minister of Education [45], in grades 1–3, pupils, as part of nature education, learn about natural hazards to humans such as weather changes, hurricanes, heavy rainfall, thunderstorms, and drought, as well as their consequences: floods, fires, and lightning, and they are taught how to respond appropriately in such situations. In the following years (grades 4–8), pupils continue learning about the natural environment, become familiar with the principles of sustainable development, and are encouraged to take action to protect the environment, including the climate, while developing an interest in ecology. In geography classes, pupils delve into the effects and changes of climate, factors shaping the climate of Poland and Europe, and the impact of weather variability in Poland on agriculture, transport, and tourism. In natural science lessons, pupils learn about weather elements (e.g., temperature, wind direction) and their measurement. Within the subject of education for safety, pupils are taught how to act in extraordinary emergency situations (including natural hazards). They learn to distinguish various alarm signals and warning systems, the principles of public warning in case of threats, and how to behave properly when such alarms are activated. Pupils also learn about duties in situations requiring evacuation.

University education, particularly in environmental engineering departments, also places significant emphasis on climate. Students of Spatial Planning at the Cracow University of Technology continue their education on natural environmental elements and their impact on land use, extreme weather phenomena, and sustainable rainwater management (including runoff, infiltration, retention, and reuse of rainwater) in various subjects such as “fundamentals of climatology and hydrology”, “water management”, and “climate change adaptation” [46].

Several studies reflect on how different stages of education contribute to increasing young people’s knowledge on environmental issues. Some authors indicate that education in Polish secondary schools does not significantly enhance students’ ecological awareness [47,48].

The aim of the conducted study was to assess the level of knowledge of primary school pupils and university students regarding the phenomenon of drought and related terminology. This study analyzed the awareness of young people about the causes, effects, and countermeasures for drought, as well as their familiarity with key concepts. Based on the results obtained, this study compared the groups involved and identified the differences between them, focusing on the relationship between the results and the level of education.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Survey Data Collection

The survey study targeted primary school pupils and final-year (seventh semester) engineering students. The research was conducted in late 2024 and early 2025. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. To gather responses from the participants, two different distribution methods were used. The primary school pupils received paper questionnaires, which allowed for direct contact with the participants and provided an opportunity to clarify any potential doubts regarding the questions. For the students, an online survey was chosen, which was created and conducted via the Google Forms platform. This approach facilitated easier access to this group, taking into account their familiarity with technology and preferences.

Two groups of respondents were invited to participate in the survey: all pupils (aged 12–14 years) from grades 6–8 at Tadeusz Kościuszko Primary School No. 25 in Krakow, and all students (aged 22–23 years) in the final semester of the Spatial Management program at the Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Energy at the Tadeusz Kościuszko Cracow University of Technology. The survey included 102 university students and 84 primary school pupils.

The research sample consisted of two clearly distinct groups in terms of age and educational stage: primary school pupils and university students. This selection was guided by several considerations. First, and foremost, both groups were accessible to the authors of this study, which allowed the survey to be conducted efficiently and ethically. The aim of this study was to compare attitudes and levels of awareness regarding climate change and drought among representatives of two distinct age groups within the youth population—children and young adults. This sample design made it possible to analyze differences arising from both age and educational level. The comparison also enabled an assessment of the effectiveness of environmental education at various stages of schooling, as well as the identification of potential educational gaps.

2.2. Participant Characteristics

The questionnaire was completed by 45.2% of the pupils and 54.8% of the university students. The survey participants included 57% women (60% of students and 53% of pupils) and 43% men. The majority of the primary school students live in large cities: 74% live in towns with a population of over 400,000, 12% in towns with a population of 150,000 to 400,000, and 9% in towns with populations between 50,000 and 150,000. The university students come from areas of various sizes: 30% live in cities with a population of over 400,000, 12% in towns with a population of 150,000 to 400,000, 6% in cities with a population of 50,000 to 150,000, and 16% in towns with populations between 5000 and 50,000. However, the largest group of students (36%) comes from small towns with populations of up to 5000.

2.3. Questionnaire Design

The questions in the author’s questionnaire were closed-ended and focused on the respondents’ opinions about droughts (

Table 1. Survey questionnaire.

Q1. What is your opinion on the following statements?	Very good	Good	Fair	Poor	Very poor
Q1.1. I understand the reasons for drought occurrence.	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
Q1.2. I understand the consequences of drought.	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
Q2. What is your opinion on the following statements?	I strongly agree	I agree	I have no opinion	I disagree	I strongly disagree
Q2.1. I believe that drought is a serious problem for Poland.	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
Q2.2. Drought is a problem in the place where I live.	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
Q2.3. The drought problem affects Poland’s economy.	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
Q2.4. Drought is one of the most serious environmental problems in Poland.
Q3. Which of the following statements best describe what drought is? You can select multiple answers.
☐ Q3.1. Lack of rainfall for a long period of time, ☐ Q3.2. High air temperature, ☐ Q3.3. Low average river flows, ☐ Q3.4. Lowering of groundwater levels, ☐ Q3.5. Reduced soil moisture, ☐ Q3.6. Low water levels in lakes, ☐ Q3.7. I don’t know, ☐ Q3.8. Other (please specify)
Q4. What do you think are the main causes of drought? You can select multiple answers.
☐ Q4.1. Climate change, ☐ Q4.2. Excessive water use consumption in agriculture, ☐ Q4.3. Excessive water use consumption in industry, ☐ Q4.4. Deforestation, ☐ Q4.5. Urbanization of retention areas, ☐ Q4.6. Rising air temperature, ☐ Q4.7. I don’t know, ☐ Q4.8. Other (please specify)
Q5. What do you think are the consequences of drought? You can select multiple answers.
☐ Q5.1. Decrease in river water levels, ☐ Q5.2. Decrease in lake water levels, ☐ Q5.3. Difficulty accessing water, ☐ Q5.4. Dry lawns, ☐ Q5.5. Soil drying out, ☐ Q5.6. Decrease in agricultural yields, ☐ Q5.7. I don’t know, ☐ Q5.8. Other (please specify)
Q6. Which regions do you think are most vulnerable to drought? You can select multiple answers.
☐ Q6.1. Lake Districts, ☐ Q6.2. Kujawy, ☐ Q6.3. Masuria, ☐ Q6.4. Bieszczady, ☐ Q6.5. Carpathians, ☐ Q6.6. Lublin Region, ☐ Q6.7. Masovia, ☐ Q6.8. Greater Poland
Q7. What is your opinion on the following statements?	I agree	I have no opinion		I disagree
Q7.1. I believe I have a real impact on reducing the effects of drought.	☐	☐		☐
Q7.2. I believe that introducing additional taxes on excessive water use is justified.	☐	☐		☐
Q7.3. I believe that drought prevention should be a mandatory topic in school curricula.	☐	☐		☐
Q7.4. The drought problem influences my choice of food products.	☐	☐		☐
Q7.5. I believe that the issue of drought should be more widely discussed in the media and schools.	☐	☐		☐
Q7.6. I believe that society’s knowledge about drought is low.	☐	☐		☐
Q8. Which of the following actions do you think are effective? You can select multiple answers.
☐ Q8.1. Saving water in households, ☐ Q8.2. Building retention reservoirs (e.g., ponds), ☐ Q8.3. Planting forests and moisture-retaining vegetation, ☐ Q8.4. Creating rooftop gardens, ☐ Q8.5. Constructing sidewalks and parking lots with permeable materials, ☐ Q8.6. Education on sustainable water resource management, ☐ Q8.7. I don’t know, ☐ Q8.8. Other (please specify)
Q9. What do you do to save water in daily life? You can select multiple answers.
☐ Q9.1. I use a dishwasher instead of hand washing, ☐ Q9.2. I use a washing machine instead of hand washing clothes, ☐ Q9.3. I take showers instead of baths, ☐ Q9.4. I use rainwater for watering plants, ☐ Q9.5. I turn off the tap while brushing my teeth, ☐ Q9.6. I don’t know, ☐ Q9.7. Other (please specify)

). The questionnaire consisted of nine closed-ended questions regarding droughts, climate change, and related issues. Six of these questions were multiple-choice, where respondents could select several answers (multiple-choice), with an additional option to write their own answer under “other”. The remaining three questions used a Likert scale. The Likert scale allows for the conversion of respondents’ answers into numerical values, which facilitates comparison and statistical analysis. Each answer was assigned a numerical value corresponding to the direction of the measured attribute, reflecting the respondents’ attitudes toward the phenomenon being studied. The points obtained by the respondents were then summed, and basic statistical measures were calculated. This enabled the determination of the strength and direction of attitudes and allowed for comparisons between groups. The scoring also facilitated the assessment of the reliability and validity of the scale, ensuring a precise tool for surveying. In questions Q1 and Q2, five-point Likert scales were used, and in question Q7, a three-point scale was employed. In all cases, an odd number of responses was provided to ensure that the middle option remained neutral for the respondent.

At the end of the survey, a demographic section was included with questions about the level of education, gender, and the size of the respondent’s place of origin.

The responses to the Likert scale questions were assigned numerical values consistent with the direction of the measured characteristic, using a five-point scale (Q1 and Q2) and a three-point scale (Q7) (Figure 1).

The application of Likert scale scoring involves assigning each response a numerical value corresponding to the direction of the measured trait, i.e., in question Q1 (from 1, “very poor”, to 5, “very good”), in question Q2 (from 1, “I strongly disagree”, to 5, “I strongly agree”), and in question Q7 (from 1, “I disagree”, to 3, “I agree”), which reflects the respondents’ attitudes towards the studied phenomenon. Such scoring allows the conversion of respondents’ answers into numerical values, enabling their comparison and statistical analysis. Subsequently, the points obtained by the respondents are summed, and means, medians, and standard deviations are calculated, which makes it possible to determine the strength and direction of attitudes and to compare results between groups.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted to examine the differences in responses between students and pupils. The following steps and methods were applied:

• Descriptive statistics:

Basic descriptive statistics were used to summarize the collected data, including the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation. The results were presented in tables and visualized using various types of charts, such as boxplots, histograms, and stacked bar charts.

• Normality testing:

To achieve the research objective and compare the responses of students and pupils, the Likert scale items were first tested for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test [49]. This test was conducted separately for each group (students and pupils) and each Likert-type item to determine whether the data followed a normal distribution. In all cases, the resulting p-values were below the chosen significance level (α = 0.05), indicating that the assumption of normality was not met.

• Non-parametric comparisons:

Since in all analyzed cases, the p-value of the Shapiro–Wilk test was below the assumed level of significance, a non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test [50] was used to compare the Likert scale responses between students and pupils. This test is appropriate for ordinal data and independent samples when the assumption of normality cannot be satisfied.

• Internal consistency:

To assess the internal reliability of the questionnaire in Likert scale questions, Cronbach’s alpha [51] was applied. A satisfactory alpha coefficient indicates acceptable internal consistency among the questionnaire items.

• Categorial data analysis:

To compare the responses of students and pupils to multiple-choice closed-ended questions, the chi-square (χ²) test was used. This test evaluates whether there is a statistically significant association between categorical variables—in this case, group membership (students vs. pupils) and selected answer options. Additionally, it was used to test the equality of proportions between the two groups by comparing the percentages of individuals selecting particular response options [52].

• Software and significance level:

All statistical calculations were performed using the GNU R software package (R version 4.4.1, R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, 2024). For all tests conducted in this study, a significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted [53].

3. Results

The results of the survey are discussed in three stages:

• Analysis of responses to the Likert scale questions (Q1, Q2, and Q7);
• Analysis of responses to multiple-choice questions (Q3-Q6, Q8, and Q9);
• Analysis of responses from combined questions (Q1.1 and Q4, Q1.2 and Q5, Q7.1 and Q9).

3.1. Likert Scale Questions

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to assess the reliability of the Likert scale. The obtained value was 0.724, indicating acceptable reliability of the questions in the survey.

The vast majority of respondents agree with the statements in questions Q1.1, Q1.2, Q2.1, Q2.3, Q7.3, Q7.5, and Q7.6, meaning they understand the causes and consequences of drought (Figure 1). As the respondents believe that drought is a significant problem in Poland and that public knowledge about it is insufficient, they see a need for broader education and media attention on the issue. They also believe that this topic should be a part of the mandatory curriculum in schools. However, they do not recognize drought as a significant problem in their own localities (Q2.2). Respondents express doubts about their own influence on mitigating the effects of drought (Q7.1), including whether introducing taxes for excessive water consumption is justified (Q7.2). The majority of young people do not consider drought when making decisions about food product selection.

The analysis of responses using the Mann–Whitney U test revealed statistically significant differences between the answers of students and pupils in only a few questions—specifically, in Q2.3, Q7.4, and Q7.6, where the p-value was below 0.05. Comparing the opinions of both groups, it was observed that students were much more likely than pupils to indicate that drought impacts the Polish economy (Q2.3,

Table 2. Basic statistics of students’ and pupils’ responses and the results of the Mann–Whitney U test (* indicate questions where the responses of students and pupils differ significantly).

Question	Pupils				Students				Mann–Whitney U Test
	Range	Mean	Median	Standard Deviation	Range	Mean	Median	Standard Deviation	Statistic	p-Value
Q1.1	1–5	3.79	4	0.95	1–5	3.86	4	0.75	1039.0	0.793
Q1.2	1–5	3.90	4	0.96	1–5	4.22	4	0.64	899.5	0.154
Q2.1	1–5	3.50	3.5	1.13	1–5	3.69	4	0.95	969.0	0.410
Q2.2	1–5	2.29	2	0.97	1–5	2.76	2	1.16	838.5	0.060
Q2.3	1–5	3.74	4	1.01	1–5	4.24	5	0.95	757.5	0.011 *
Q2.4	1–5	3.07	3	1.05	1–5	3.27	3	1.08	965.5	0.400
Q7.1	1–3	2.14	2	0.68	1–3	1.88	2	0.74	1278.0	0.084
Q7.2	1–3	2.00	2	0.73	1–3	1.84	2	0.81	1195.0	0.309
Q7.3	1–3	2.45	3	0.77	1–3	2.59	3	0.64	992.5	0.477
Q7.4	1–3	1.71	1.5	0.81	1–3	1.41	1	0.64	1284.0	0.049 *
Q7.5	1–3	2.67	3	0.53	1–3	2.76	3	0.43	985.5	0.394
Q7.6	1–3	2.38	2	0.66	1–3	2.84	3	0.46	646.0	0.000 *

). Students also pay more attention to the awareness of drought when choosing food products (Q7.4, Table 2). Additionally, students disagreed with the statement that public knowledge about drought is insufficient, while pupils expressed more doubt in this regard (Q7.6, Table 2).

Only a few percent of pupils (7%) and students (4%) admitted that they were not familiar with the causes of drought (Q1.1, Figure 2a,b). Ten percent of pupils declared insufficient knowledge about the effects of drought, while the majority of students indicated an understanding ranging from average to very good, with no students marking responses indicating a lack of awareness on this issue (Q1.2, Figure 2).

Approximately 30% of pupils did not have an opinion on whether drought is a serious problem for Poland (Q2.1) or their place of residence (Q2.2) or whether it affects the economy (Q2.3). Among students, the percentage of “no opinion” responses was lower, which may reflect a stronger formation of their opinions (Figure 2).

Both groups had similar views on whether drought is one of the most serious environmental problems in Poland (Q2.4). About one-third of respondents agreed with the statement, one-third had no opinion, and one-third disagreed (Figure 2).

A significant percentage of both pupils (52%) and students (45%) could not assess whether they have a real impact on mitigating the effects of drought (Q7.1, Figure 2). A similar level of indecision (48%) was observed among pupils regarding the potential introduction of taxes for excessive water consumption. Among students, the percentage of undecided respondents was lower (33%), and more students opposed such a solution than pupils (Q7.2, Figure 2). Young people generally support the inclusion of drought-related topics in educational curricula, with about one-quarter of them not expressing an opinion on this matter. However, only 8% of students and 17% of pupils were opposed to this idea (Q7.3, Figure 2).

The vast majority of respondents believe that the issue of drought should be more widely publicized in the media and schools—69% of pupils and 76% of students agreed with this statement.

3.2. Multiple-Choice Closed-Ended Questions

The chi-square test revealed statistically significant differences in the responses of the analyzed groups to question Q3 concerning the definition of drought. In general, young people most commonly associate drought with a prolonged lack of rainfall (Q3.1)—74% of school children and 82% of university students selected this answer. The second most frequently chosen cause of drought was high air temperature (Q3.2)—55% of school children and 47% of university students indicated this response. The proportion test showed a statistically significant difference in the responses to question Q3.3—low average river flow as a characteristic of drought was selected by 43% of university students, while only 14% of pupils chose this option. A statistically significant difference was also observed in the responses of both groups to question Q3.4; 65% of university students considered a decrease in groundwater levels as an important aspect of drought, while only 26% of school children shared this opinion. The third most popular answer among university students, and the second most common among pupils, was reduced soil moisture (Q3.5). A low water level in lakes as a characteristic of drought was indicated by 26% of school children and 43% of university students. An interesting difference appeared in the responses of the two groups to question Q3.7—10% of school children were unable to define what drought is, while none of the university students selected the “don’t know” answer for this question. Additionally, only 2% of university students provided a self-devised answer to question Q3.8 (two respondents answered ‘hot’), while none of the school children chose to supplement this answer (

Table 3. Basic statistics of responses to multiple-choice questions from pupils and students, as well as the results of the chi-square test and proportion test (* indicates a question where the responses from students and pupils differ significantly).

Question	Pupils	Students	Chi-Square Test	Proportion Test	Question	Pupils	Students	Chi-Square Test	Proportion Test
Q3.1	73.8%	82.4%	χ2 = 16.959 p-value = 0.018 *	0.457	Q6.1	7.1%	7.8%	χ2 = 10.025 p-value = 0.187	1.000
Q3.2	54.8%	47.1%		0.595	Q6.2	21.4%	17.6%		0.845
Q3.3	14.3%	43.1%		0.005 *	Q6.3	16.7%	5.9%		0.182
Q3.4	26.2%	64.7%		0.0005 *	Q6.4	21.4%	11.8%		0.328
Q3.5	54.8%	68.6%		0.247	Q6.5	11.9%	13.7%		1.000
Q3.6	26.2%	43.1%		0.138	Q6.6	31.0%	47.1%		0.172
Q3.7	9.5%	0.0%		0.082	Q6.7	52.4%	52.9%		1.000
Q3.8	0.0%	2.0%		1.000	Q6.8	26.2%	56.9%		0.0057 *
Q4.1	83.3%	90.2%	χ2 = 9.4074 p-value = 0.1519	0.502	Q8.1	76.2%	58.8%	χ2 = 14.92 p-value = 0.037 *	0.122
Q4.2	21.4%	13.7%		0.482	Q8.2	52.4%	78.4%		0.015 *
Q4.3	28.6%	29.4%		1.000	Q8.3	64.3%	84.3%		0.047 *
Q4.4	35.7%	47.1%		0.372	Q8.4	40.5%	37.3%		0.917
Q4.5	33.3%	60.8%		0.015*	Q8.5	33.3%	56.9%		0.040 *
Q4.6	52.4%	62.7%		0.425	Q8.6	61.9%	64.7%		0.950
Q4.7	9.5%	0.0%		0.082	Q8.7	11.9%	0.0%		0.038 *
Q4.8	0.0%	0.0%		1.000	Q8.8	0.0%	5.9%		0.313
Q5.1	54.8%	70.6%	χ2 = 10.408 p-value = 0.109	0.173	Q9.1	57.1%	51.0%	χ2 = 5.183 p-value = 0.394	0.701
Q5.2	52.4%	56.9%		0.824	Q9.2	69.0%	80.4%		0.307
Q5.3	54.8%	68.6%		0.247	Q9.3	64.3%	80.4%		0.131
Q5.4	50.0%	37.3%		0.305	Q9.4	23.8%	43.1%		0.083
Q5.5	64.3%	86.3%		0.025 *	Q9.5	81.0%	90.2%		0.328
Q5.6	57.1%	82.4%		0.015 *	Q9.6	4.8%	0.0%		0.391
Q5.7	11.9%	0.0%		0.038 *	Q9.7	0.0%	0.0%		1.000
Q5.8	0.0%	0.0%		1.000

, Figure 3).

The chi-square test performed for the question about the causes of drought (Q4) did not reveal statistically significant differences between the groups (Table 3). The most frequently indicated causes of drought were climate change (Q4.1), increased air temperature (Q4.6), and deforestation (Q4.4). Around 30% of respondents from both groups considered excessive water use in industry as a cause of drought (Q4.3), and a slightly smaller percentage of respondents pointed to water consumption in agriculture (Q4.2). The proportion test showed a statistically significant difference in the responses to question Q4.5—61% of university students believed that drought is caused by the development of retention areas, while only 33% of school children selected this answer (Table 3, Figure 3). Additionally, 10% of school children admitted that they do not know the causes of drought (Q4.7), whereas no university student gave such an answer. Young people did not provide any additional causes of drought (Q4.8).

Both university students and pupils recognized the consequences of drought in the drying of soil (Q5.5) and the decline in agricultural production (Q5.6). These answers were the most popular in both groups; however, the proportion test revealed a significant difference in the responses, with over 80% of university students and around 60% of pupils choosing these options. A significant difference in responses also emerged for question Q5.7—12% of pupils were unable to identify the effects of drought, whereas none of the university students selected this answer.

The remaining answers were more evenly distributed: a decrease in river water levels (Q5.1), lake water levels (Q5.2), water access problems (Q5.3), and drying lawns (Q5.4) were selected by around 50% of school children. University students more frequently chose the answers of a decline in river water levels (Q5.1) and water access problems (Q5.3)—these responses were selected by about 70% of them. For the answer of low water levels in lakes (Q5.2), the response rate of university students was similar to that of school children (57%). Drying lawns (Q5.4) as a consequence of drought was recognized by only 37% of university students. No young person provided their own consequences of drought (Q5.8) (Table 3, Figure 3).

In the question about areas in Poland most at risk of drought (Q6), both university students and pupils agreed, and they most frequently pointed to the Lublin region (47% of university students and 31% of pupils), Mazovia (53% of university students and 52% of pupils), Greater Poland (57% of university students and 26% of pupils), and Kuyavia (18% of university students and 21% of pupils). A statistically significant difference in responses (the p-value of the proportion test is less than 0.05) was observed only for the response to (Q6.8)—Greater Poland as an area particularly prone to drought was selected by more than twice as many university students as pupils. Additionally, pupils selected the Bieszczady mountains as an area at risk of drought.

Regarding actions to prevent drought (Q8), both groups provided similar responses, listing water conservation at home (Q8.1; 76% of school children, 59% of university students), the construction of rooftop gardens (Q8.4; 41% of school children, 37% of university students), and education on the sustainable use of water resources (Q8.6; 62% of school children, 65% of university students). In the remaining cases, responses were more varied. More university students than pupils selected the answers construction of retention reservoirs (Q8.2), planting moisture-retaining vegetation (Q8.3), and building surfaces made of water-permeable materials (Q8.4). The answer “I don’t know” to question Q8.7 was chosen by 12% of pupils, while 6% of university students suggested their own solutions to combat drought (Q8.8). No primary school pupil entered their own answer in the ‘other’ field. Several university students provided additional responses: rainwater tanks, green roofs, and rain gardens (Q8.9).

In question Q9 about water-saving actions, young people demonstrated exceptional agreement; the most common responses were turning off the water while brushing teeth (Q9.5), using the washing machine optimally (Q9.2), and taking a shower instead of a bath (Q9.3). Around 50% of respondents use a dishwasher (Q9.1), while watering plants with rainwater (Q9.4) was less popular. The answer “I don’t know” (Q9.6) was given by 5% of school children, and no respondent suggested their own way of saving water (Q9.7).

3.3. Combined Questions

The survey used in this study was designed in such a way as to enable the analysis of relationships between responses provided by respondents to the following questions simultaneously:

• The causes of drought occurrence (Q1.1 and Q4);
• The consequences of drought (Q1.2 and Q5);
• The relationship between the belief in having a real impact on reducing the effects of drought (Q7.1) and the actions taken in daily life to save water (Q9).

• Simultaneous Responses to Question Q1.1 and Question Q4

In question Q1.1, at least a good understanding of the causes of drought was declared by 67% of pupils and 73% of university students, among whom the vast majority (i.e., 85% of pupils and 87% of university students) recognized climate change (Q4.1) as the main cause of drought. Importantly, this response also predominated among those who did not declare knowledge of the causes of drought or had no opinion on the matter (Figure 4).

Significant differences between the pupil and student groups were recorded for the response (Q4.5) regarding the development of retention areas. Even in the group of people who declared knowledge of the causes of drought, as well as in the group with no specific opinion, large differences in the response to this factor were evident. University students indicated this factor as significant much more often, both among those who declared knowledge of the causes of drought and among those with no clear opinion.

It is not always observed that more university students selected specific responses, but in every analyzed situation, the discrepancies were significant. For example, desertification as a contributing factor to drought (Q4.4) was selected by 25% of pupils and 46% of university students, and an increase in air temperature (Q4.6) was selected by 43% of pupils and 69% of university students.

• Simultaneous Responses to Question Q1.2 and Question Q5

In question Q1.2, at least a good understanding of the consequences of drought was declared by 29% of pupils and 45% of university students (Figure 5).

Among these respondents, the most frequently selected responses were soil drying (Q5.5; 66% of pupils and 87% of university students) and a reduction in agricultural crops (Q5.6; 59% of pupils and 84% of university students). The youth also pointed to a decrease in river water levels (Q5.1; 66% of pupils, 71% of university students), problems with water access (Q5.3; 59% of pupils, 69% of university students), a reduction in lake water levels (Q5.2; 49% of pupils, 58% of university students), and dry lawns (Q5.4; 45% of pupils, 38% of university students). No pupil selected the “I don’t know” response regarding the consequences of drought (Q5.7, Figure 5).

Among the pupils (with the exception of response Q5.2), it can be observed that individuals who admitted a lack of knowledge regarding drought understanding selected fewer responses. For example, 66% of pupils who understood drought selected the decrease in river water levels (Q5.1), whereas only 29% of those who declared a lack of understanding did so. For university students, the differences between the two groups were less pronounced.

• Simultaneous Responses to Question Q7.1 and Question Q9

Only 24 respondents (31% of pupils and 22% of university students) stated that they have an influence on limiting the effects of drought (Q7.1) (Figure 6).

Despite this, the majority of respondents answered the question regarding water-saving actions (Q9). The most commonly selected answer was turning off the water while brushing teeth (Q9.5), regardless of education level or prior declarations. Among those convinced of their influence on mitigating drought, almost all (92% of pupils and 91% of university students) indicated saving water while brushing teeth (Q9.5).

The vast majority stated that they take showers instead of baths (Q9.3; 77% of pupils and 82% of university students). Similar percentages of youth use the washing machine optimally (Q9.2; 62% of pupils and 82% of university students) and the dishwasher (Q9.1; 69% of pupils and 73% of university students). The least popular action was using rainwater to water plants (Q9.4), which was selected by only 15% of pupils and 36% of university students. None of the respondents selected the “I don’t know” option (Q9.6) or provided their own methods of saving water (Q9.7).

4. Discussion

Droughts are natural phenomena; however, in recent decades, Poland has experienced several extreme and severe droughts. The most serious drought episodes occurred in the years 1992, 1994, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2015, 2018–2019, and 2022–2024. In some years and regions of the country, the consequences were particularly severe—losses in agricultural holdings reached up to 70% of crop value [54]. Despite the fact that drought poses a real threat to both the economy and the environment, the younger generation still does not fully recognize its scale and consequences (Q2.1). Only half of Polish pupils consider it a serious problem, whereas this percentage reaches as high as 71% among university students, indicating a noticeably higher level of awareness in this group.

4.1. Perception of Drought Among Polish Youth

It appears that the younger generation recognizes the importance of climate change; however, a key challenge remains: how to translate this awareness into real engagement and a sense of agency. A 2021 study by the IBRIS Institute showed that as many as 73% of young people believe climate change is a serious issue (82.2% of students and 63.2% of pupils) [55]. Similar conclusions were drawn from a 2022 study on Generation Z, which found that 63% of surveyed youth consider environmental and climate protection an important aspect of their lives [56]. However, this growing ecological awareness among young people does not always translate into a willingness to act. In 2024, only 5% of young people declared a willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of the climate, compared to 13% in 2022 [57]. This study also showed that only 31% of students and 22% of pupils believe they can have a real impact on mitigating the effects of drought (Q7.1). The survey results indicate that 50% of Polish pupils and 71% of students consider drought a serious nationwide issue (Q2.1, Q2.4). However, comparative analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences between the two groups in their assessment of the severity of the problem, which may suggest that higher education content does not significantly influence opinions. A different situation was observed regarding the question about the impact of drought on the national economy (Q2.3)—students were more likely than pupils to recognize this aspect. Moreover, 69% of pupils and 76% of students believe the issue of drought should receive more media attention (Q7.5). Kaczała [41] notes that higher trust in media reporting on drought is associated with a lower perception of risk, which highlights the importance of effective communication in drought management.

4.2. Climate Change as a Cause of Drought

As previously mentioned, the majority of respondents—including youth—recognize climate change as the main cause of drought, influencing its frequency, intensity, and duration [38]. In this study, this view was shared by 83% of pupils and 90% of students (Q4.1). Similar results were obtained in studies conducted in Chile [25], the USA [35], and Spain [36]. Geography students from Kent State University [37] and students from American College [38] also recognized the impact of climate change on natural disasters and expressed concerns about their consequences.

4.3. Stages of Drought

Polish youth most commonly associate drought with its meteorological phase, namely a lack of precipitation (Q3.1), high temperatures (Q3.2), and reduced soil moisture (Q3.5), as indicated by an average of 61% of pupils and 66% of university students. Symptoms of hydrological drought, such as low river flows (Q3.3), lowered groundwater levels (Q3.4), or reduced water levels in lakes (Q3.6), were mentioned less frequently—these answers were selected by 22% of pupils and 50% of students, respectively (Table 3). Similar conclusions were presented by Colston et al. [58] based on research in the USA, where 54% of respondents defined drought as meteorological, and only 4% as hydrological.

4.4. Causes of Drought

Polish youth most often consider insufficient precipitation as the main cause of drought (Q3.1; 74% of pupils, 82% of students), similar to farmers in Afghanistan [30] and Balochistan [26]. Polish youth also associate drought with reduced water levels in rivers (Q3.3) and lakes (Q3.6). The impact of drought on lowering surface water levels was noticed by 55% of pupils and 71% of students (Q5.1), as well as 52% of pupils and 57% of students (Q5.2). Farmers from various countries primarily associate drought with reduced yields and lower water levels in reservoirs and rivers (in Australia [27] and in Afghanistan [31]). Polish respondents also pointed to the agricultural effects of drought—57% of pupils and 82% of students indicated crop losses (Q5.6). Almost all farmers in Afghanistan [31] mentioned pasture degradation as a result of drought, and Polish youth also recognized the issue of dry lawns (Q5.4; 50% of pupils and 37% of students). In this study, 55% of pupils and 69% of students (Q3.5) indicated insufficient soil moisture as an important indicator of drought, which aligns with the findings of Faisal et al. [27] in Thailand.

4.5. Perception of Drought and Place of Residence

The relationship between place of residence and perception of drought is also confirmed by international studies. For example, in Texas, about 50% (61.6% in the first edition of the study and 47.9% in the second) of respondents considered drought a significant problem [34], whereas in the southern U.S. states, as many as 53% of farmers did not recognize this issue [59]. In Poland, 31% of students and 9% of pupils noticed drought in their place of residence, while 53% of students and 62% of pupils did not feel its effects; 16% of students and 29% of pupils had no opinion.

4.6. Anthropogenic Causes of Drought

More frequent and severe droughts are a result of climate change but are also influenced by human activity. In the study by Aldunce et al. [25], 29% of respondents identified human activity as a cause. Although human activity was not directly named as a cause of drought in this study, 29% of pupils and students indicated excessive industrial water use as a significant factor (Q4.3).

4.7. Attitudes Toward Water Conservation

In accordance with recommendations by Polish institutions, including the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management—National Research Institute, the basic actions for conserving water in households include taking showers instead of baths, turning off the tap while brushing teeth, and using dishwashers and washing machines only when fully loaded [1]. These practices enjoy significant popularity among Polish youth—up to 81% of pupils and 90% of students declare that they turn off the tap while brushing their teeth (Q9.5), which exceeds the results from the study by March et al. [36], where 67.3% of respondents reported doing the same. Likewise, opting for a shower instead of a bath is common: 64% of Polish pupils and 80% of students indicated this behavior (Q9.3). In comparison, in the study by Dessai et al. [32], only 12% of respondents in the United Kingdom mentioned showering as a water-saving method, and just 14% avoided leaving the tap running. These differences may partly stem from different research methodologies—closed-ended questions were used in the Polish study, whereas the British study relied on open-ended questions. Nevertheless, in both cases, turning off the tap and using showers were among the most frequently cited water-saving strategies.

In contrast, fewer respondents reported watering plants with rainwater—with pupils doing so less often than students. This may be linked to place of residence: as many as 86% of pupils live in Krakow or other large cities, where apartment buildings dominate, limiting access to gardens and rainwater storage facilities. In turn, students were more likely to report using rainwater, which could be due to the fact that a significant portion of them come from smaller towns—36% live in places with fewer than 5000 inhabitants.

In Poland, rainwater management is increasingly promoted, for instance, through national support programs such as “My Water”—funded by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management—as well as local initiatives supported by municipalities. The “My Water” program, announced for the years 2020–2024 [60], aims to support investments in collecting and reusing rainwater, e.g., for plant watering or other household purposes. Since 2020, the program has been widely promoted in the media—TV, press, and social media [59]. It is therefore surprising that a relatively small proportion of young people reported using rainwater for watering plants (Q9.4; Table 3, Figure 3). This may suggest that current promotional efforts are not sufficiently effective. It may be worth intensifying information campaigns, focusing on presenting ready-to-use solutions and emphasizing the practical benefits of rainwater retention.

4.8. Water in Poland

Poland’s water resources are characterized by significant spatial variability as well as clear seasonal fluctuations. Throughout the country, average runoff is higher in the winter half of the year than in the summer. The highest runoff levels throughout the year are recorded in the southern parts of the country, in the mountains (Sudetes and Carpathians, including the Bieszczady), and from August to February in the foothills. In contrast, the least water-rich rivers—regardless of the month—are found in the lowland central belt of Poland (mainly in the Mazovia, Lublin, Kuyavia, and Masuria regions) [61]. The greatest risk of meteorological drought occurs in central and western Poland, while in the rest of the country, the risk of years with significant drought tends to be localized [6]. Baran-Gurgul [62,63] studied drought in the Polish Carpathians and found that droughts typically occur in this region during summer and autumn, while in the Tatra Mountains and Podhale area, they occur in autumn and winter. The longest and most severe droughts take place in Podhale and the Tatra Mountains, while shorter and less intense ones are observed in the Bieszczady and eastern Carpathians. Most respondents—both pupils and students—correctly identified the region’s most vulnerable to drought, such as Lublin, Mazovia, Kuyavia, and Greater Poland. A few mentioned the lake districts and the Carpathians, while some pupils incorrectly identified the Bieszczady Mountains as a particularly endangered area, despite scientific data not confirming a high risk in that region.

4.9. The Impact of Education on Youth Knowledge Regarding Drought Prevention

An analysis of responses to question Q8.2 reveals significant differences between the surveyed groups of young people in Poland. Retention reservoirs were identified as an effective measure to combat drought by 78% of students, whereas only 52% of pupils indicated the same. However, this considerable disparity may not stem from differing assessments of the solution’s effectiveness, but rather from a lack of understanding of the term “retention” among younger respondents. A similar pattern was observed in responses to question Q4.5—61% of students and only 33% of pupils recognized the construction of retention areas as a cause of drought. These differences suggest that familiarity with hydrological terminology, rather than actual differences in opinions, influences how the answers are given.

A comparable distribution of answers appeared in responses to question Q8.5 regarding the use of permeable surfaces on sidewalks and parking lots—only 33% of pupils, compared to 57% of students, considered this solution effective in drought prevention. This gap may result from the fact that pupils are likely unfamiliar with such technologies, unlike students, for whom this topic may have been discussed during university courses.

Both pupils and students often indicated that one effective way to prevent drought is through water conservation in households (Q8.1). While this approach holds clear educational value and contributes to shaping pro-environmental attitudes, it is not the most effective tool in combating drought. According to data from Statistics Poland (GUS), in 2023 (excluding agriculture and forestry), water usage was distributed as follows: 65% was used by industry, 25% by municipal services, and 10% for filling and maintaining fishponds [64]. This means that although household water use is significant, the most critical drought prevention measures must be systemic in nature. Effective drought mitigation requires integrated solutions aimed at creating, protecting, and enhancing retention, including technical actions (such as investment in water infrastructure) and non-technical measures focusing on proper spatial planning, public education, and the reform of water resource management policies to ensure sustainable use at all levels [10].

It is worth noting, however, that some studies address the broader context of environmental protection rather than water conservation alone. Studies by Jimenez et al. [65], Kistner et al. [66], and Tolppanen et al. [67] show that young people often mistakenly identify low-impact actions as key strategies for combating climate change. In these studies, students most frequently indicated recycling, saving energy, or reducing consumption as primary strategies, while overlooking more impactful but demanding actions—such as reducing meat consumption, switching to a plant-based diet, or avoiding air travel. These results suggest that although young people express a willingness to act, they tend to choose strategies that are easy to implement and socially acceptable, rather than those with the greatest effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, they rarely point to adaptive actions that help societies prepare for the consequences of ongoing climate change. Students in the cited studies recognized the crucial role of education in addressing the climate crisis. Many respondents called for workshops, ecological events, and nature excursions, as well as changes to school curricula that would encourage young people to reflect on their responsibility toward future generations.

In summary, the answers provided by pupils and students often do not reveal clear differences directly resulting from educational level. However, an analysis of the “I don’t know” responses shows small distinctions between the two groups. In questions Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q8, about 10% of pupils chose this option, and 5% did so for Q9, whereas students never selected it (Table 3). In Likert-scale questions, pupils reported having no opinion on the topic more often than students (Figure 3). These results suggest that students possess greater knowledge, show higher awareness of the issues surveyed, and are more likely to have formed opinions on the topics analyzed. This tendency is further confirmed by the analysis of open-ended responses. Although only a few students used the opportunity to provide their own answers in the “other” field (Q3, Q4, Q5, Q8, Q9), pupils left these sections completely blank (Table 3). This may indicate greater readiness among students to express independent opinions and reflections, which highlights the importance of higher education in developing awareness and shaping attitudes that support sustainable water resource management.

5. Conclusions

This study is likely the first in Poland to compare the level of knowledge between primary school pupils and technical university students regarding the causes, consequences, and countermeasures related to drought. The survey results indicate the need to intensify educational efforts at the academic level so that graduates of technical universities have a better understanding of the scientific foundations of climate change and extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, typhoons, and earthquakes. Equally important is fostering awareness among young people of the need for active engagement in mitigating the effects of these phenomena, both in their professional and social lives. Young people, especially students, due to their age and high susceptibility to media influence, represent a significant and distinct social group. As future decision-makers, scientists, and professionals, they will be able to influence legislative processes, environmental management strategies, and scientific development, making their opinions on climate change and extreme events particularly important in the context of long-term efforts toward sustainable development and adaptation to changing environmental conditions.

To effectively increase awareness among children and youth about drought, costly measures are not necessarily required. In Poland, there are many valuable and often free educational resources that support the understanding of climate change, with their credibility confirmed by governmental institutions. An example is the Drought Prevention Plan [5], which obliges public institutions to conduct drought education within the framework of primary and secondary school classes. The aim of these activities is to shape attitudes that promote water resource protection and the understanding of the need for adaptation to changing environmental conditions. As part of the Drought Prevention Plan, there are numerous lesson plans, educational videos, and other teaching aids available through the Stop Drought website [1]. Another valuable source of knowledge and free e-learning courses for students and teachers is the Klimada 2.0 platform [68]. The Institute of Environmental Protection—National Research Institute (IOŚ-PIB) implements a project titled “Knowledge base on climate change and adaptation to its effects and the means of its dissemination in the context of increasing the resilience of the economy, environment, and society to climate change and counteracting and minimizing the effects of extraordinary threats”, co-funded by the EU [67]. The climate-related content available on this platform can be effectively incorporated into primary school subjects such as nature, biology, and geography—and its inclusion in the curriculum should be mandatory.

An analysis of the Spatial Planning undergraduate program suggests that both the number of hours and the scope of content related to climate change—taught through subjects such as fundamentals of climatology and hydrology, water management, and climate change adaptation—are adequate for this level of education [46]. However, the small differences in responses between pupils and students suggest that neither secondary nor higher education has significantly contributed to raising young people’s awareness of climate change, especially drought. Similar conclusions emerged from previous research, including a survey conducted by Wojtaszek-Ziernicka [47] among students of the Faculty of Agriculture and Economics at the University of Agriculture in Krakow. The results show that the lowest percentage of students acquired ecological knowledge at the secondary school level. These findings are supported by the research of Hłobił [48], who argues that despite the presence of many subject-specific courses aimed at shaping ecological awareness, high schools do not fulfill this function sufficiently. Moreover, it turned out that university education also did not significantly improve the level of ecological knowledge.

It is worth noting, however, that since 2010, significant changes have taken place in Poland in both educational curricula and legal regulations aimed at raising public awareness of drought and climate change. Among these are the implementation of the Drought Prevention Plan and the increasing inclusion of climate-related topics in educational materials and activities of public institutions. Despite these positive steps, the number of hours devoted to this topic in the education system still seems insufficient—especially in the context of growing environmental challenges and the need to develop ecologically responsible attitudes.

For this reason, it is worth considering the introduction of additional courses, preferably at the early stages of university education, which would not only deepen students’ knowledge but also develop critical thinking skills regarding the impact of human activity on the environment. Climate education should be strongly linked to practical experience—through student projects, participation in field workshops, or involvement in local pro-environmental initiatives. Examples of such approaches include activities carried out in selected primary and secondary schools under programs implemented by the Nasza Ziemia Foundation (https://naszaziemia.pl/eko-edukacja, accessed on 20 May 2025) or the Foundation of the Environmental Protection Bank (https://fundacjabos.pl, accessed on 20 May 2025), where nationwide campaigns allow students to combine ecological topics with social activity—creating educational videos, establishing school rain gardens, and even cooperating with local governments as part of youth climate councils.

It is crucial that both schools and universities enable young people to engage with real-world examples of how the knowledge acquired during classes and lectures is applied. As emphasized by Hiser and Lynch [69], student participation in practical sustainable development activities enhances engagement and deepens the learning process. Such an approach can be observed, for example, at the Cracow University of Technology, where the surveyed Spatial Planning students are enrolled. In recent years, they have been able to observe implemented drought prevention solutions on campus—including rain gardens that retain and filter rainwater from rooftops, as well as rainwater tanks used for irrigating green areas. These types of initiatives not only consolidate theoretical knowledge but also help build the practical competencies necessary to respond to the climate crisis.

6. Limitations and Future Research

The results presented in this article provide a starting point for further studies with a broader thematic scope and a larger sample of respondents. Further investigations could provide a more comprehensive understanding of students’ knowledge levels and adapt the curricula of engineering programs at higher education institutions, ultimately contributing to better preparation of future professionals to face the challenges posed by the climate crisis.

One of the key limitations of this study lies in the local character of the research sample. The survey included only students from a single university and pupils from one primary school in Krakow. This restricts the generalizability of the findings, as it cannot be assumed that the results are representative of broader youth populations in other Polish regions, which may differ significantly in terms of their social or educational profiles.

Expanding this study to include a larger and more diverse group of young people would increase the robustness of the findings and enable more nuanced conclusions. Additionally, although the applied research methodology is widely used in social science, it is not without its methodological drawbacks. The use of the Likert scale may give rise to central tendency bias, where respondents favor neutral options, as well as acquiescence bias—an inclination to agree with statements regardless of their content.

Moreover, the use of multiple-choice questions, while practical, may restrict respondents’ ability to express nuanced opinions. Predefined answers may not fully reflect the diversity of viewpoints, and the lack of opportunities for explanation may result in superficial data. There is also a risk that some participants responded randomly or without full engagement, which may affect the overall reliability of the findings.

Future studies should not only address these methodological limitations and be conducted on a larger sample of respondents, but also aim to incorporate complementary qualitative approaches, such as interviews or open-ended questions, in order to deepen the analysis and provide a more effective interpretation of the results.