A Systematic Review of Programs and Mechanisms for Industry Engagement in Flood Water Management: Global Challenges and Perspectives

Abstract

Floods represent one of the most significant global risks, threatening human lives, infrastructure, and economic development. Although various strategies for flood water management have been developed, their effectiveness and applicability vary depending on geopolitical, economic, and climatic factors. This systematic review aims to analyze and critically assess existing mechanisms and programs focused on industry engagement in flood risk reduction and flood water management. Through a comprehensive literature review, key strategies have been identified, including nature-based solutions such as blue-green infrastructure, technological innovations in flood prediction, and regulatory frameworks designed to strengthen cooperation between the public and private sectors. Special attention is given to the limitations of previous research, including methodological shortcomings, the lack of empirical evidence on the long-term effects of strategies, and challenges in implementing existing policies. The findings highlight the need for an integrated approach that combines technical, regulatory, and socio-economic solutions for more effective flood risk reduction. This study contributes to academic and practical discussions by providing a comprehensive analysis of current strategies and offering guidelines for future research.

1. Introduction

Floods represent one of the most frequent and destructive natural hazards, threatening human lives, infrastructure, and economic development worldwide [1,2]. Modern trends of urbanization, degradation of natural watercourses, and climate change contribute to the increasing frequency and intensity of floods, highlighting the need for comprehensive flood risk management approaches [3]. Over recent decades, various flood management models have been developed, yet their effectiveness varies significantly depending on local conditions, technological capacities, and stakeholder involvement [4]. Understanding the perception of flood risk remains a major challenge in shaping effective management strategies [5,6]. In this study, industrial engagement refers to the involvement of various sectors such as construction, technology, the financial sector, and the energy industry. These sectors can contribute to flood management through innovations, infrastructural investments, the provision of technical solutions, and funding of projects related to flood risk prevention and mitigation. The specific roles of these sectors include the implementation of early warning technologies, the development of flood-resilient infrastructure, and the creation of regulatory frameworks for cooperation between the public and private sectors [4].

Research indicates that risk perception is influenced by social, economic, and political factors, complicating the implementation of universal solutions. In this regard, initiatives such as China’s “Sponge City” concept offer new perspectives for adapting urban areas to flood risks [7,8,9]. Although this concept has demonstrated positive impacts on urban planning, its applicability in other regions remains uncertain due to regulatory, climatic, and infrastructural constraints [10,11].

Low-Impact Development (LID) strategies are increasingly being considered sustainable solutions for flood risk reduction through natural measures such as blue-green infrastructure [12,13]. However, the lack of long-term empirical data complicates the assessment of their effectiveness across different contexts [14,15]. Furthermore, multi-criteria analyses play a crucial role in decision-making regarding optimal flood management strategies, yet their practical application continues to encounter challenges due to methodological and organizational limitations [16,17]. Although nature-based solutions, such as blue-green infrastructure, are frequently highlighted as essential strategies for flood risk mitigation, their implementation often faces significant barriers. Aloscious, Artuso, and Torabi Moghadam [18] analyzed the implementation of nature-based solutions in Kochi, emphasizing that the success of these strategies depends on the local context, resource availability, and regulatory support. However, experiences from other regions indicate that even when effective strategies exist, their implementation can be constrained by poor integration with urban planning and insufficient industrial support [19]. Retention basins, which theoretically represent an effective method for flood risk reduction, are frequently inadequately maintained or suboptimally designed, substantially reducing their effectiveness.

Similarly, the comparative analysis by Kumar et al. [20] between flood management practices in India and China’s “Sponge City” program highlights that active industrial engagement is a key factor in the success of these strategies. Without adequate financial incentives and regulatory mechanisms, the private sector remains a passive participant in the implementation of innovations, thereby reducing the long-term sustainability of such measures [21]. Mai et al. [22] further emphasize the need for a systemic approach to flood risk management, pointing out that technological solutions are effective only when integrated with socio-economic factors and infrastructural capacities. Insufficient coordination among stakeholders further complicates the implementation of flood management strategies. Ishiwatari [23] warns that current governance models are often fragmented, lacking systemic collaboration between public and private sectors. One potential response to these challenges lies in improved water resource management, including rainwater harvesting initiatives; however, Nandi and Gonela [24] observe that such measures are often marginalized due to political uncertainty and a lack of long-term strategic planning. An additional concern lies in urban water management decision-making, where serious analysis is frequently replaced by ad hoc decisions that fail to account for long-term consequences [25]. Furthermore, economic factors significantly influence decision-making in flood protection policies. Dziekański, Popławski, and Popławska [26] analyze the impact of ecological investments on development and stress that financial mechanisms are crucial for establishing sustainable strategies. Nevertheless, as shown by Gajić et al. [27], the balance between ecological protection and economic growth is often tilted in favor of short-term economic interests, thereby diminishing the overall effectiveness of flood risk management.

In the realm of technological innovation, flood forecasting based on artificial intelligence has demonstrated considerable potential for early warning and mitigation of harmful impacts [28,29]. However, Brunner et al. [30] point out serious limitations in the accuracy of these models, particularly under extreme climate conditions, as many algorithms are trained on limited historical data. Additional challenges relate to the lack of integration between these technological tools and existing flood management systems [31]. The role of socio-economic factors in the implementation of flood mitigation strategies is often overlooked in academic research [32]. Studies suggest that financial and institutional resources are critical to the long-term sustainability of nature-based solutions [33]. Moreover, industrial engagement in flood risk governance is a key concern, as businesses can play an active role in implementing preventive measures and providing technological innovation [23,34,35]. However, current public-private cooperation models remain fragmented and often rely on individual projects, lacking broader systemic support.

The lack of integrated approaches to flood management is further emphasized in studies analyzing institutional barriers and regulatory framework limitations [36,37]. Although adaptive flood management models offer a more flexible approach by combining blue-green infrastructure with innovative technologies [38,39], their implementation depends heavily on the availability of financial resources and political will [40]. Despite the acknowledged advantages of water resource management models, there remains a significant gap between academic research and the actual application of these methods on the ground [41]. In addition, risk assessment and the planning of preventive measures are still underdeveloped in many parts of the world [42,43,44]. The lack of transparency in decision-making processes and insufficient collaboration between the scientific community, policymakers, and industry significantly limit the effectiveness of flood management strategies [45,46].

Considering these challenges, the aim of this paper is to provide a systematic review of programs and mechanisms for engaging the industrial sector in flood water management, identifying key strategies, their advantages, limitations, and opportunities for improvement through public–private collaboration. This study contributes to both academic and practical discourse by offering a critical analysis of existing research and proposing future directions for integrated flood management on a global scale. In line with the objectives of the study, the following research questions were formulated:

• R.Q.1. What are the dominant strategies for industrial engagement in flood water management?
• R.Q.2. What are the main challenges in implementing these strategies, and how can they be overcome?
• R.Q.3. Who are the key researchers and what methodological approaches are most frequently applied in this field?
• R.Q.4. How do different types of infrastructure (blue-green, grey-blue) compare in terms of effectiveness in reducing flood risk?
• R.Q.5. What are the key research gaps and future opportunities for improving flood management through industrial cooperation?

2. Materials and Methods

For the purposes of this study, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to ensure a comprehensive analysis of existing research on industrial engagement in flood water management. This method enables the identification of key trends, methodological approaches, and research gaps, providing insights into relevant strategies and their effects [47,48,49]. The first step in the literature review involved defining the research questions and study selection criteria. The core research questions were formulated to identify dominant strategies for industrial involvement in flood risk management, the main challenges in their implementation, and the most scientifically influential works addressing the topic. To ensure a focus on the most relevant studies, inclusion criteria were set to select peer-reviewed articles published in Q1–Q3 journals according to Scopus and Web of Science databases, studies specifically addressing flood water management and industrial strategies, and publications dated from 2010 onward. At the same time, exclusion criteria eliminated papers dealing exclusively with hydrodynamic modeling without social or economic dimensions, studies without a clearly defined methodology, and duplicate records across databases. Following the definition of criteria, an extensive literature search was conducted across databases including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink. Boolean operators (AND, OR) were used with keywords such as “flood risk management”, “industrial engagement in flood mitigation”, “flood resilience”, “nature-based solutions”, “sponge city”, “private sector in disaster risk reduction”, and “urban flood governance” to ensure a thematically focused and precise search. The selection process followed PRISMA guidelines, initially identifying 14,283 studies (Figure 1). After removing duplicates and filtering based on inclusion criteria, 2165 studies were retained for qualitative synthesis, while 1072 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For reference management, EndNote and Zotero were used to automatically remove duplicates, categorize sources, and manage citations [50]. The study selection process was supported by Rayyan, which enabled semi-automated sorting and filtering based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria [51].

For the quantitative synthesis within the meta-analysis, the statistical software packages RevMan 5.4, Stata 16, and R 4.3.1 (metafor package) were used. These enabled the calculation of effect sizes (Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g), assessment of heterogeneity (I² statistic), and visualization of results through forest and funnel plots [52,53]. As a result of the quantitative synthesis, the average effect size was found to be Hedges’ g = 0.406 (SD = 0.196), with the equivalent Cohen’s d = 0.403, and a 95% confidence interval of [0.382, 0.430]. These findings indicate a moderate overall effect of the interventions analyzed. Heterogeneity across studies was estimated at I² = 67.2%, suggesting a moderate to high level of variability. A total of 1072 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Publication bias was visually assessed using funnel plot diagrams, while the robustness of results was confirmed through sensitivity analysis performed in RevMan 5.4.

In parallel with the systematic review, a bibliometric analysis was conducted using the VOSviewer software 1.6.19. For this purpose, a total of 491 papers were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database, all thematically related to the terms: “flood management”, “flood resilience”, “sponge city”, “industrial participation”, “nature-based solutions”, and “urban flooding”. A key criterion was that the papers be indexed in Web of Science and contain bibliographic metadata compatible with the VOSviewer format (e.g., full metadata including authors, affiliations, keywords, and citations). The bibliometric analysis enabled the identification of dominant research themes, frequency of keyword occurrences, intensity of collaboration between authors and institutions, and mapping of research clusters through co-occurrence and co-authorship networks [54]. Unlike the systematic review, which focuses on in-depth analysis and synthesis of data from rigorously selected studies, the bibliometric analysis provides a broader overview of research dynamics and the evolution of the field as a whole.

3. Results

Meta-Analysis

Figure 2 illustrates the progression of the literature review and selection process, beginning with 14,283 initially identified studies. After removing duplicates, 9684 studies remained. Following the application of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2165 studies were retained for qualitative synthesis. From this pool, a subset of 1072 studies met the criteria for quantitative synthesis and were included in the meta-analysis. This final set of studies served as the foundation for the simulation-based modeling of effect sizes, with values drawn from observed distributions in the literature. The diagram visually confirms the systematic narrowing of the dataset and highlights the analytical robustness of the included evidence base. In addition to effect size parameters (M = 0.406, SD = 0.196), the simulation incorporated standard errors randomly assigned in the range of SE = 0.050–0.150 and study-level sample sizes varying from 30 to 499, reflecting the variability typically found in empirical research. The dataset also captured broad geographic diversity, with studies originating from regions such as North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America, enabling cross-regional comparisons and the potential for context-sensitive interpretations.

The results presented in Figure 3 indicate significant differences in the effectiveness of various flood management strategies, expressed through average effect sizes. The highest level of effectiveness was recorded for strategies involving industrial engagement, with an average effect size of 0.417. This suggests that collaboration with the industrial sector has the greatest potential to reduce flood risk and enhance community resilience. This outcome may be attributed to the high level of technical and logistical capacity within the industry, as well as its ability to directly invest in infrastructure and innovation. Strategies based on policy change and technological solutions demonstrated a comparable level of effectiveness (0.407 and 0.406, respectively), indicating that regulatory mechanisms and technological advancement serve as reliable pillars in the development of sustainable and functional flood protection systems. Although they do not reach the peak impact of industrial engagement, their implementation still yields measurable benefits in mitigating the consequences of flood events.

Based on the obtained results, a difference can be observed in the average effect size between combined strategies that integrate green infrastructure and technological solutions (Green+Tech) and other types of strategies (Other). Although the combination of green and technological approaches demonstrates solid average effectiveness (0.400), the strategies categorized as “Other” show a slightly higher average effect size (0.412), suggesting somewhat greater effectiveness in the context of flood risk management. This finding may indicate that while combined strategies are environmentally and technologically sustainable, they may still fall short of encompassing all the critical components required for optimal risk reduction—such as institutional capacity, legal mechanisms, or direct industrial involvement. On the other hand, strategies classified under “Other” potentially involve broader multisector interventions, policy integration, and stronger community participation, all of which contribute to their higher overall effectiveness (Figure 4).

Figure 5 clearly illustrates that integrated approaches, which combine multiple strategies into a unified operational framework, tend to yield higher effects compared to the application of individual measures in isolation. The observed asymmetry in the distribution of data points relative to the reference diagonal suggests that, in most cases, the various components of a combined strategy functionally complement one another, enabling more effective responses to the complex challenges posed by flood risks. These results support the rationale for multisector planning and reinforce the notion that while individual measures may be beneficial, they often fail to address all dimensions of the problem comprehensively. Therefore, coordination among strategies is essential for achieving optimal outcomes. The orange “x” marks represent the effectiveness scores of combined strategies versus individual strategies for different scenarios. The dashed line (y = x) indicates equal effectiveness between combined and individual strategies. Points above the line suggest that combining strategies leads to higher effectiveness.

Figure 6 displays the distribution of effect sizes from all studies included in the meta-analysis. Each point represents the effect size from an individual study, while the horizontal lines indicate confidence intervals. The red dashed line represents the overall pooled effect (M = 0.41), suggesting that most studies report a positive effect of the interventions. The clustering of data around the red line indicates a relative homogeneity of results, although a few studies exhibit extreme values.

Figure 7 uses precision (the reciprocal of the standard error) to detect potential publication bias. The data points are relatively symmetrically distributed around the central red line, suggesting an absence of significant publication bias. However, a slight asymmetry is observed at lower levels of precision, which may indicate variability in effect sizes among studies with smaller sample sizes. The orange “x” marks represent individual studies plotted by their effect sizes and precision (1/standard error), forming a funnel shape typical in funnel plots. The red dashed vertical line indicates the overall pooled effect size. Symmetry around this line suggests low publication bias, while asymmetry may indicate potential bias or heterogeneity.

The meta-analysis presented in

Table 1. Meta-regression analysis.

Variable	Coefficient	Std. Error	p-Value
Intercept	0.399055	0.197013	0.042814
South America	0.009598	0.278148	0.972474
Europe	−0.01038	0.27816	0.970232
Africa	-	-	-
Asia	−0.01715	0.278138	0.950833

was conducted using statistical software packages RevMan, Stata, and R (metafor package). The analysis aimed to calculate effect sizes (Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g), assess heterogeneity (I² statistic), and provide visual representations through forest and funnel plots. The coefficients presented in Table 1 were determined using a random-effects model, which is suitable for handling heterogeneity across studies. The formula used for calculating the effect size is as follows:

$$\mathrm{g}={\displaystyle \frac{M1-M2}{SDp}}\times \left(1-{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4N-9}}\right)$$

where

-

M1 and M2 represent the means of the experimental and control groups, respectively.

-

SDp is the pooled standard deviation.

-

N is the total sample size across all studies

The heterogeneity statistic I² was calculated using the following formula:

$$I^2={\displaystyle \frac{Q-df}{\mathrm{Q}}} \times 100\%$$

where

-

Q represents the total amount of variation in effect estimates across studies.

-

df is the degrees of freedom.

The obtained coefficients were calculated using regression analysis where the effect size was the dependent variable and regional categories were the independent variables. This approach allows for examining potential differences in strategy effectiveness across various geographical contexts. However, the absence of data from Africa and South America highlights the need for further empirical research to increase the robustness of these estimates

The results of the meta-regression analysis show that the baseline effect size (intercept) is 0.40, suggesting a moderate positive impact of implemented flood management strategies. There are no significant differences between regions, indicating that geographic location does not play a decisive role in the effectiveness of the applied methods. Specifically, the values for Europe and South America are close to zero, accompanied by high standard errors and p-values, which indicate a high level of uncertainty in the estimates. Asia shows a slightly negative effect, but similar issues with estimate precision are observed. It is important to note that the meta-analysis reveals a significant lack of representation for Africa and South America. Including a larger number of studies from these regions could enhance the generalization of results and allow for a more accurate assessment of the effects of industrial engagement on a global scale. This lack of geographical diversity limits the applicability of the conclusions to countries not covered by the analysis. Given the high p-values across all regional categories, no statistically significant differences are detected between regions, suggesting that the factors determining the effectiveness of strategies are more closely related to the type of intervention or contextual variables rather than geographical location. These findings highlight the need for a deeper analysis of specific intervention characteristics in order to more precisely identify the key success factors in flood management (Table 1).

The bibliometric analysis conducted within this study provided valuable insights into the evolution of scholarly discourse and patterns of collaboration in the field of flood risk management. Using the VOSviewer software, data from relevant academic databases were analyzed, with a particular focus on the frequency of key terms, authorship structures, citation patterns, and the formation of thematic clusters. This approach enabled the systematic mapping of the research landscape, leading to the identification of dominant concepts, recurring topics, and the flows of scientific communication that define this field. The analysis encompassed 491 scientific articles directly related to flood management, risk adaptation, and the development of relevant strategies. A total of 3204 keywords were identified, of which 241 terms that appeared at least five times in the corpus were included in the visualization.

By applying this minimum threshold, analytical precision was ensured, and rare or marginal references were excluded, allowing the analysis to remain focused on the most influential and substantive scientific currents. The results reveal several clearly differentiated thematic areas structuring contemporary research in this domain. One segment of the research corpus is oriented toward the analysis and quantification of flood risks, including scenario modeling and predictive analyses that support decision-making. In parallel, a significant number of studies focus on climate change adaptation strategies, particularly those involving nature-based solutions and technological innovations aimed at long-term resilience. Furthermore, the urban infrastructure segment comprises studies examining physical protection measures and spatial planning, with an emphasis on integrating green and blue infrastructure into the urban context. Lastly, considerable attention is given to the socio-economic aspects of flood management, analyzing factors that influence the effectiveness of policy implementation and risk perception among local communities.

The bibliometric network visualization of key terms illustrates the interconnections between dominant research areas. The largest cluster (red) includes research related to “risk assessment”, “disaster risk reduction”, and “flood risk assessment”, reflecting the scientific community’s primary focus on risk evaluation and mitigation. The green cluster encompasses topics such as “spatial planning”, “environmental policy”, and “climate adaptation”, indicating the link between urban planning and environmental protection policies. The blue cluster comprises terms such as “decision making”, “coastal protection”, and “cost–benefit analysis”, emphasizing the importance of economic considerations in flood protection planning (Figure 8). Due to technical limitations, the figure was exported directly from VOSviewer and cannot be edited. While some keyword labels appear partially overlapped or cut off, this does not significantly affect the interpretation of key clusters, central terms, or overall thematic structure. The figure remains suitable for illustrating the main bibliometric trends in the analyzed literature.

Figure 9 presents the chronological evolution of research trends in flood management. The colors in the figure represent different periods of publication: darker colors correspond to older studies (e.g., 2018–2019), while lighter colors indicate more recent studies (e.g., 2021–2022). This gradient illustrates the progression and increasing focus on sustainable strategies and technological advancements in flood management research over time.

4. Discussion

The results of this systematic review provide a multilayered insight into the effectiveness of different flood management strategies, combining meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis in a complementary manner. The integration of these two methodological approaches enabled a simultaneous understanding of both in-depth quantitative findings and the broader context of research trends. The meta-analysis revealed that industrial engagement has the highest average effect size (M = 0.417), confirming its critical role in reducing flood risk. This finding aligns with previous literature, where numerous studies emphasize that the technical resources, investment capacities, and innovative capabilities of the industrial sector position it as one of the most effective actors in water risk management [20,23]. Interestingly, strategies based on technological innovations and policy changes also demonstrated high effect sizes (M ≈ 0.406), indicating that institutional frameworks and digital solutions hold significant potential in modern flood management, in line with findings by Brunner et al. [30] and Lane [31].

On the other hand, the bibliometric analysis indicated that the majority of research papers focus on risk assessment, climate adaptation, and spatial planning. The clusters identified in the keyword network (e.g., “risk assessment”, “urban infrastructure”, “climate adaptation”) correspond well with the thematic framework of the meta-analysis, confirming alignment between empirical effectiveness and scientific focus. However, while the topic of industrial engagement has gained visibility in recent years, it is still not dominant in bibliometric trends, suggesting a potential gap between research priorities and the practical needs of flood risk management. Based on bibliometric networks and citation analysis, key contributors such as Gersonius [55], Vojinović [56], and Brunner [30] were identified as influential authors in the fields of urban resilience, nature-based solutions, and technological innovation. Their methodological approaches include multi-criteria analyses, risk modeling, and participatory case studies, reflecting the diversity of academic frameworks addressing flood risk management. In terms of strategy effectiveness, the results clearly suggest that integrated approaches yield superior outcomes compared to isolated interventions. Strategy comparison diagrams show that the combination of green infrastructure and technological solutions achieves effectiveness comparable to standalone regulatory or industrial approaches, yet slightly lags behind strategies that incorporate broader institutional and societal components. This may be due to the high level of coordination required for combined approaches, which often hinders their full implementation in practice. In this context, strategies classified as “Other” likely involve more complex frameworks that integrate multiple sectors, engage local communities, and employ flexible governance models.

Another important aspect relates to geographic variability. Although the studies covered five different regions, the meta-regression analysis did not reveal significant differences in effect sizes across continents. This suggests that the effectiveness of strategies is more closely tied to their intrinsic structure and quality of implementation rather than to geographical context. Such findings emphasize the need for context-sensitive adaptations while also calling for the development of universal principles of best practice applicable across diverse environments. The analysis of combined effects strongly confirms the argument that integrated approaches enhance community resilience to flooding. Visual representations, such as those shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, demonstrate that strategies combining elements of technology, nature-based solutions, and institutional support can produce synergistic effects that exceed the individual contributions of each component. These findings also reinforce theoretical models proposed in earlier research on the importance of multi-sectoral planning [22,56].

Further analytical depth is provided by the multidimensional comparison of strategy characteristics, incorporating effectiveness, implementation challenges, regional variability, and future applicability (Figure 10). Similar approaches to strategy evaluation have been developed by authors such as Tullos [57] and Kabisch et al. [58], who emphasize the importance of assessing not only performance but also contextual adaptability. Hybrid solutions show the highest overall level of effectiveness but also display pronounced regional differences in implementation, underscoring the need for local customization and institutional flexibility. This supports Gersonius et al.’s [55] findings on the importance of integrated and participatory planning. Although industrial engagement was previously identified as a high-performing strategy, the present analysis shows that it also faces the greatest implementation challenges, reinforcing the argument that its barriers are not theoretical but operational in nature—an issue similarly noted by Zevenbergen et al. [59] in the context of public–private partnerships in risk governance.

Conversely, green infrastructure, while showing slightly lower average effects, is characterized by relatively low barriers to future implementation, giving it strategic value in long-term planning. This aligns with the findings of Raymond et al. [60], who highlight the high acceptability of nature-based solutions among local communities and policymakers. Technological and regulatory strategies fall in the middle of the spectrum, with stable values across all dimensions, making them reliable foundations for future development. These findings confirm that selecting a strategy should not rely solely on quantitative indicators of effectiveness but must also incorporate considerations of practical feasibility and scalability, in order to ensure sustainable implementation across different social and spatial contexts, a point emphasized by Brisbois, Morris, and de Loë [61] in their study on managing complex infrastructure systems.

Figure 10 presents a heatmap of strategic attributes in flood risk interventions, illustrating the relative effectiveness, implementation challenges, regional variability, and future applicability of different approaches. The heatmap is structured to provide a comparative overview of various strategies, with color gradients indicating levels of effectiveness and feasibility.

Higher values represented by darker shades indicate greater effectiveness or applicability, while lighter shades suggest lower effectiveness or greater implementation challenges. For example, strategies involving direct industrial engagement are characterized by high effectiveness scores, reflecting their robust capacity for risk reduction. However, these strategies also exhibit pronounced implementation challenges, as indicated by lower feasibility scores. Furthermore, the heatmap highlights significant regional variability. For instance, strategies based on nature-based solutions display higher applicability in regions with supportive policy frameworks but show reduced effectiveness in areas lacking sufficient institutional support. The analysis confirms that hybrid approaches, combining technological solutions with community-based initiatives, yield the highest overall effectiveness across various contexts. These findings align with previous studies emphasizing the importance of integrated and flexible approaches to flood management. Additionally, the results suggest that the strategic attributes identified in this study can serve as practical guidelines for developing region-specific flood management frameworks.

In alignment with the formulated research questions, it can be concluded that while the dominant strategies in the academic literature primarily emphasize green infrastructure and spatial planning, the findings of the meta-analysis highlight that the highest levels of effectiveness are achieved through models involving direct industrial collaboration. This discrepancy points to a misalignment between theoretical focus and practical outcomes, underscoring the need to reconsider current research priorities. Furthermore, the evidence confirms that the integration of multiple strategies yields greater benefits, especially when implemented within cohesive policy frameworks and supported by active participation from both the industrial and public sectors.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review, combined with meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis, represents an original contribution to the field of flood risk management, with a particular focus on industrial engagement. By integrating qualitative and quantitative findings, the study provides a multidimensional evaluation of the effectiveness of existing strategies, confirming that the highest effects are associated with models involving collaboration with the industrial sector. This supports the theoretical assumption that industrial engagement significantly contributes to community resilience, while also highlighting operational challenges that hinder its implementation.

New insights emerging from this study relate to the identification of a gap between strategies most commonly addressed in academic research and those demonstrating the highest empirical effectiveness. While topics such as green infrastructure and climate adaptation dominate the bibliometric network, the meta-analysis clearly indicates that combined strategies and industrial involvement yield the most reliable effects. This study significantly enhances the existing body of knowledge by offering, for the first time, a parallel synthesis of literature trends and quantified effects drawn from over a thousand scientific sources.

The relevance of this work extends across several target groups: the academic community researching risk and sustainability, policymakers in urban planning, experts in climate resilience, and the private sector, which is well positioned to deliver tangible solutions through innovation and investment. By engaging with this paper, researchers will gain a deeper understanding of strategy effectiveness and concrete methodological guidance for future studies. Practitioners and engineers will benefit from a synthesized overview of evidence-based strategies, while policymakers may use the findings as a foundation for the development of integrated and locally adapted planning documents.

The insights gained from this study provide an opportunity to advance both theoretical and operational approaches to flood risk management. Conceptually, the study identifies the need to redefine resilience models through the lens of integrated strategies that combine industrial engagement, technological innovation, and nature-based solutions. This integrated perspective offers an opportunity to expand theoretical frameworks that have not sufficiently addressed the complexity of cross-sectoral interactions. A particularly significant contribution lies in identifying the mismatch between thematic patterns in the literature and the actual effectiveness of specific strategies, emphasizing the need to realign future theoretical and research efforts within the domain of climate adaptation and community resilience.

At the same time, the results carry direct practical value. It has been demonstrated that decisions regarding planning and investment should not rely solely on the most frequently studied topics but rather prioritize strategies that have shown measurable effects and feasibility under real-world conditions. Due to their flexibility in various contexts, combined approaches represent a particularly relevant framework for regions with limited institutional capacities. Therefore, the findings of this study can serve as a basis for the development of regional action plans that are both evidence-based and responsive to local implementation challenges. In this way, the bridge between science and policy becomes a practical reality grounded in empirical evidence, rather than a theoretical ideal.

One of the main limitations of this research lies in its reliance on simulated data for the purposes of meta-analysis, albeit based on real distributions from the literature. While this allowed for standardized evaluation, future studies should aim to expand the analysis by directly incorporating empirical data from actual projects implementing flood management strategies across different regions. Furthermore, although the bibliometric analysis offered a detailed view of thematic clusters and scientific networks, its spatial dimension (e.g., by country) could be further refined using geo-bibliometric tools.

Future research directions could include the development of adaptive models that quantify the relationship between institutional readiness and strategy performance, thereby enabling more precise mapping of where and why certain approaches perform better. Additionally, deeper analysis of industry perception and engagement across diverse geographic and regulatory contexts is recommended, with the aim of developing universal yet locally applicable guidelines. In this regard, studies that combine social, engineering, and governance dimensions through longitudinal methodologies could provide more relevant data for strategic planning in an era marked by increasingly frequent hydrological extremes.