1 Introduction

Humanity and the environment are facing grave threats to their long-term sustainability posed by climate change and rapid population growth, which has increased global disasters, with hydrometeorological disasters among the worst (Mavrouli et al. 2022). In the last decades, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of extreme hydrological events, which has led to severe damages (Cloke et al. 2017). In 2013, hydrological disasters accounted for 159 (48.2%) of all major disasters globally in comparison to meteorological disasters (storms) at 32.1%; climatological disasters (extreme temperatures, droughts, and wildfires) at 10%; and geophysical disasters (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and dry mass movements) at 9.7% (Guha-Sapir et al. 2014).

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report of 2022, a temperature increase of 1.5 °C is projected to affect approximately 24% of the global population through flood hazards and an increase of approximately 30% with an additional temperature increase of 0.5 °C, with particular emphasis in coastal cities due to anticipated increases in sea level rise, storm surges, and coastal flooding. In the United States, the risk of flooding is predicted to increase by more than 25% within the next 30 years due to climate change (Sadiq et al. 2019). This elevated risk not only poses a threat to human lives and infrastructure but also leads to substantial economic losses, as climate-induced flooding has already caused severe economic damage worth more than an estimated USD 147 billion between 1980 and 2019 (Newman and Noy 2023) and USD 30 billion in 2020, exacerbating the economic strain in areas already affected by floods (Fields 2022). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report highlights that economic losses associated with flood events have been consistently increasing since 1970, partially attributed to shifts in weather patterns (OECD 2021). This heightened risk has significant implications for the global population and economies, increasing vulnerability in flood-prone regions, especially in developing countries.

According to Polka (2018), flood risks are a near-universal threat. While developed countries suffer significant damage from floods, their lower vulnerability is attributed to better prevention and risk management strategies. The Netherlands, a developed country with high flood risk, with over half of its population at risk of flooding, exemplifies this paradox (Klijn et al. 2012; Jongman et al. 2014). Despite the available resources, developed countries face substantial economic and social losses, necessitating continued investment in flood prevention (McDermott 2022). Developing countries are more vulnerable due to rapid urbanization, poor land use, and population growth and are more prone to flooding, resulting in increased damage and disruptions (Kovacs et al. 2017). Poverty exacerbates flood exposure, with 89% of the world’s flood-exposed population in low and middle-income countries (Rentschler et al. 2022). According to Yuen and Kumssa (2010), Africa is one of the world’s fastest-growing continents, including large urban and coastal cities. Given that population growth and urbanization have led to unrestricted land use and encroachment on previously uninhabited swampy zones, Africa is particularly vulnerable to floods, which have caused significant losses (CRED 2015; WMO 2022). According to the United Nations (2022), Africa has an annual population growth rate of 2.5%. Between 1970 and 2019, extreme weather, climate, and hydrological events were responsible for half of all disasters, 45% of recorded deaths, and 74% of documented economic losses (WMO 2022). Flood risks are increasingly becoming complex, and addressing complex challenges requires a holistic and participatory approach encompassing adaptation, mitigation, and consideration of socioeconomic and environmental aspects of flood risk management (Madu 2017; Nur and Shrestha 2017; Rehman et al. 2019; Salazar-Briones et al. 2020; Costa 2021; Hagedoorn et al. 2021; Islam et al. 2022).

Flood risks are complex, induced through the interactions of multiple components and their underlying drivers that can sometimes lead to short- and long-term synergies and trade-off outcomes (Ceres et al. 2022). Consequently, to address complex interconnections and identify practical solutions to flood challenges, the systems thinking approach is widely appreciated for its holistic and practical viewpoint than other analytical approaches, given that it considers connectedness, relationships, and context (Nyam et al. 2020; Perrone et al. 2020). This methodology facilitates an accurate comprehension of the system implications of complex human–environment sustainability. Without this, there is a risk that policies and technological breakthroughs would have unanticipated implications (Saviano et al. 2019; Mehryar and Surminski 2022). The increase in flood frequency and intensity coupled with population growth has led to the emergence of concepts like “living with floods” (Hellman 2015; Chetry 2022) and “building back better” (Cheek and Chmutina 2022; Mendis et al. 2022). However, achieving successful outcomes requires scientific knowledge and evidence-based techniques to understand gaps and potential interventions in the face of increased population growth and urbanization. Despite the growing application of systems theory and its associated tools in business, water management, and economics, its application to disaster risk management has not been thoroughly evaluated empirically. Limited knowledge exists regarding the application of systems thinking to understand flood risk management, particularly in the context of developing countries, hence necessitating this study. This research evaluated published articles on systems thinking and flood risk management to identify global trends, gaps, and opportunities. It aimed to enhance an understanding of the application of system thinking approaches to flood risk management research.

Systems thinking (ST) is widely recognized as a method to address complex problems in various domains and has been extensively documented. The system dynamic (SD) methodology based on the principle of systems thinking has proven to be an innovative method for comprehending the structure and behavior of complex systems within the context of systems thinking over time (Azar 2012; Sterman et al. 2015; Saunders and Truong 2019; Nyam et al. 2020; Laurien et al. 2022). Using system dynamics, encompassing qualitative and quantitative models enables the perspicacity of relevant feedback and causal connections that govern the behavior and structure of intricate systems (Awah et al. 2024). The study of systems thinking often involves the examination of fundamental and widely used concepts such as feedback, variables, and time delays frequently explored within system dynamics, specifically through causal loop diagrams (CLD) (Wolstenholme and Coyle 1983; Schaffernicht 2010; Barbrook-Johnson and Penn 2022). Loop diagrams depict variables that exhibit patterns depending on particular feedback and circular causality. These concepts are used to explain the reciprocal relationships between variables, where arrows indicate the mutual influence that can be negative (balancing feedback loop) or positive (reinforcing feedback loop) as explained by Watson and Watson (2013). To thoroughly understand systems, practitioners use systems thinking as a suitable approach to describe and analyze the interactions and influences among varied factors and components (Betley et al. 2021; Schoenenberger et al. 2021).

2 Data and Methods

In this study, descriptive and network analysis techniques were employed to provide an overview of the evolution of systems thinking methodology and its application in flood risk management research. This study considered search words to retrieve scientific documents relating to system theory and flood research globally as shown in Table 1. The bibliometric method is a good innovation for literature reviews as it tries to retrieve relevant documents needed for research through databases such as Web of Science (WoS), PubMed, Scopus, and others. The scientometric analysis provides a rigorous process allowing the analysis of various aspects of published academic materials (articles, books, and so on) to show the past and current structure of the concerned field through citation, co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, keyword occurrences, and cluster analysis. The analysis was conducted using Biblioshiny (Ogundeji and Okolie 2022; Salleh 2022) in the R-Studio environment, Vosviewer (free online analysis tool), and Scopus and WoS databases, to understand the multidimensional structure and identify the trends, gaps, and opportunities for future flood risk management research. The analysis involved projecting key aspects such as themes, authors, countries, institutions, and keywords, among others, from 2002 to 2022.

Table 1 Search focus, criteria, eligibility, and elimination strategies in the flood risk management research study
Full size table

2.1 Sourcing Relevant Information on the Published Materials

The Scopus and WoS databases were employed to procure scientific publications because they are widely recognized as a comprehensive and interdisciplinary repository of peer-reviewed literature within social sciences. Compared to alternative databases such as Dimension, they exhibit a greater prevalence of keyword-based article searches that is particularly relevant for this review. Several eligibility and exclusion criteria were considered during the article search process. Locating and accessing relevant information was based on a targeted search focused on keywords, titles, and abstracts given its efficacy as previously acknowledged by Atanassova et al. (2019) and corroborated by Mejia et al. 2021). The analysis incorporated all published peer-reviewed documents especially articles from academic journals focused solely on environmental science and social science-related fields. The review only considered articles in English given that English is a widely known language worldwide. A span period of 21 years was considered to encompass the majority of literature on system dynamics and flood risk management. Table 1 presents comprehensive information regarding the criteria, eligibility, and exclusionary measures employed to identify pertinent articles for in-depth analysis. Document search employed keywords such as “systems thinking” AND “flood risk.” Table 1 presents the comprehensive search string.

2.2 The Review Process

The review process followed the guidelines proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) and applied the four-phase systematic review methodology suggested by Ogundeji and Okolie (2022). The keywords on systems thinking and flood risk management were based on the research objective (Table 1). The search yielded a total of 234 published materials (articles, books, and so on). A screening process was conducted leading to the elimination of 102 articles from the original sample of 234 articles. The elimination of articles was done taking into consideration certain factors such as the lack of primary focus on system dynamics and flood risk management, the publication stage, and/or language.

2.3 Data Processing and Analysis

This scientometric analysis was conducted using R-Studio V.3.4.1 software in conjunction with the bibliometrix R-package. Upon conducting a comprehensive review of pertinent literature for this study, the collected data were imported into R-Studio and converted into a bibliographic format, ensuring uniformity in identifying and removing potential duplicates. The author names, keywords (DE), and keywords-plus (ID) were extracted to enhance visualization. The extraction procedure entailed meticulously examining the abstracts and comprehensively analyzing the complete articles to ascertain relevant themes and sub-themes. The study employed a qualitative content analysis technique to identify the themes and subjects related to systems thinking and flood risk management. After the selection process, the selected documents underwent descriptive and bibliometric analysis using Biblioshiny, as presented in the result section.

3 Results

Studies published on system dynamics, systems thinking, and flood risk management from 2002 to 2022 were evaluated in this study as this period coincides with the increased prominence and adoption of systems thinking principles in the field of disaster management. Analyzing certain parameters/matrices helps us identify gaps or limitations regarding research outputs in a specific sector. These matrices include the (1) most cited countries, (2) highly cited articles, (3) most referred articles, (4) number of articles with a high impact factor, (5) country’s most relevant affiliations, (6) most productive authors, (7) corresponding authors and the number of articles produced from a country, and (8) number of citations per country. This article, however, focuses on identifying the publication trends, the most productive countries, collaboration networks between authors and institutions, and keyword and thematic evolution of research based on keyword search that will allow the researchers to identify gaps and opportunities for further research.

3.1 Analyzing Data Output and Thematic Evolution

The study analyzed 234 published articles on systems thinking, system dynamics, and flood risk management from 2002 to 2022. The research showed an annual growth rate of 11.61% in the number of publications, with a peak in 2021 and 2022, consistent with the findings of Yang et al. (2021) who highlighted an increase in flood-related studies globally. The average annual total citations per article fluctuated, with 2018 having the highest average. The past decade has seen a rapid upswing in using systems thinking tools, particularly in sustainability studies and natural sciences. As elucidated by Hossain et al. (2020), this upturn can be attributed to practitioners, academia, and industry recognizing the imperative need to embrace systems thinking as a novel cognitive approach for addressing contemporary intricate challenges. The number of publications in this field has gradually grown from 2 in 2002 to 11 in 2015 and 18 in 2022 (Fig. 1), suggesting the gradual integration of systems thinking tools in flood research worldwide.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Annual scientific production applying system dynamics and systems thinking in flood research from 2002 to 2022. AATC average annual total citations

Full size image

The study used a Sankey diagram to visualize the evolution of study themes, structures, and contexts over three distinct periods: 2002–2006, 2007–2015, and 2016–2022 (Fig. 2). A Sankey diagram is often used to understand and visualize the thematic evolution of keywords over time (Cobo et al. 2011; Okolie et al. 2022). The themes identified during 2002–2006 were disaster management, climate change, system dynamics, and hydrology. From 2007 to 2015, themes like system dynamics and climate change persisted, while additional themes emerged, including floodplain, ecosystem, systems theory, sustainable development, floods, and flooding. The last segment (2016–2022) added hydrological modeling and simulation. It should be noted that systems theory and related themes, such as systems thinking and system dynamics, have been used in the literature but have shown limited application in flood risk management research. This highlights the application gaps in systems thinking methodologies and flood risk management research. Previous studies have demonstrated the usefulness of systems thinking in understanding complex systems, such as economic systems, agriculture, and natural resource management (Bosch et al. 2007; Laspidou et al. 2020). However, given the inherent complexities of flood systems, a holistic methodology is necessary to gain a profound and precise understanding of underlying dynamics and the systems approach is the most effective and optimal methodology (Nyam et al. 2020).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Thematic evolution in research on system dynamics, systems thinking, and flood risk management based on keyword occurrences from 2002 to 2022

Full size image

3.2 Country Research Output

According to Wang et al. (2018), a country’s influence in a research field is often determined by parameters such as publication output, H-index, citation count, and collaboration network. For the top 15 most productive countries, the United States ranked first in terms of published documents and total citations, followed by China, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, India, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, South Africa, and Sweden (Fig. 3). The publishing frequency of the top countries varied from 0.8 to 19.8%, highlighting substantial variations in country productivity and total citations. The study found that a country’s ability to produce a considerable number of publications does not necessarily guarantee high citation rates. For example, Australia ranked sixth in total publications (n = 13, 5.5%) but was not among the top 15 in total citations. This finding aligns with the findings of Di Bitetti and Ferreras (2017) that factors like language, discipline, and accessibility (open access or not) significantly influence the total citation count of a publication.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Top 15 most productive countries in the research on system dynamics, systems thinking, and flood risk management from 2002 to 2022

Full size image

Country-wise author collaboration was analyzed to gain collaboration insight. Figure 3 indicates that single-country production accounted for approximately 73.5% compared to multiple-country production, which accounted for 26.5% of research related to system dynamics, systems thinking, and flood risk management. This finding highlights the need for more collaboration among authors, countries, institutions, and continents. Collaboration within sectors, as emphasized by Peffer and Renken (2016), will enhance knowledge and productivity, thereby reducing knowledge gaps, whether in specific methodologies or broader skill sets.

The calculations based on the top 15 most productive countries in system dynamics, systems thinking, and flood risk management research publications from 2002 to 2022 indicate that the continent of America represented by the United States and Canada emerged as the leading continent with a combined total publication count of 34.9%. Asia, encompassing China, South Korea, and India, recorded total publication counts of 31.3%, standing as the second most productive continent. Europe, represented by the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden, ranked third, accounting for 28.9% of the total publication count. The Australian and African continents ranked fourth and fifth with a total publication count of 3.6% and 1.2%, respectively.

3.3 Most Productive Journals

Journal publications are crucial for disseminating information about a specific topic or sector of interest (El-Omar 2014). An analysis of journals allowed us to understand the state of flood risk management research, identify trends, and identify gaps for effective flood risk management strategies. Through journal publications, researchers become aware of the scientific outputs of scholars in their sector of interest. It was, therefore, vital to identify journals that have contributed to understanding systems thinking, system dynamics, and flood risk research through conceptual frameworks, risk analysis methodologies, or providing practical solutions for effective flood risk management. This is important as it can assist researchers in quickly identifying journals that are suitable for the publication of their research on system dynamics and flood risk management. An analysis of journals publishing research related to systems thinking and flood risk management from 2002 to 2022—based on publication frequency and total publications—revealed that the journal Science of the Total Environment ranked first (10.56%), followed by Water Resources Management and Water Resources Research (9.24%), while Water ranked third (7.92%), Earth and Environmental Science ranked fourth (6.6%), and the Journal of Cleaner Production ranked fifth (5.28%). The journals Advances in Global Change Research, Ecology and Society, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, and Disaster Prevention and Management ranked sixth (3.96%).

3.4 Network Visualization Analysis

A network visualization map was used to explore the co-occurrence of author keywords (Fig. 4). The density network unravelled the intricate nature of the research landscape. The size of each circle in the intellectual network corresponds to the frequency of use of a specific keyword in the analyzed documents. Based on the author’s keyword search, system dynamics, floods, and flood control are the prominent keywords within this research domain. The interconnectedness and linkages observed in the network visualization indicate the complex relationships among these keywords, underscoring the shared interests of authors in advancing flood-related research with a focus on systems thinking. The size of each keyword in the density and network visualization reflects its significance and frequency of appearance in the literature on system dynamics and flood risk management. The proximity of keywords to one another suggests the likelihood of their interaction throughout the study period. The results of the literature research exhibit notable variations in the density and network visualization of co-occurring author keywords across individual articles, emphasizing the multidimensional and multifaceted nature of this scientific field. These findings align with previous studies conducted by Okolie et al. (2022) and (Orimoloye et al. (2021).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Network analysis for co-occurrence of keywords in system dynamics and flood risk management research from 2002 to 2022

Full size image

4 Discussion

In the face of increasing challenges posed by climate change, urbanization, and population growth, flood risk management has emerged as a critical global concern. The following discussion delves into the current state of flood risk management research, highlighting emerging trends, identifying critical research gaps, and exploring opportunities for future studies. The evolving landscape of flood risk management demands a closer examination of the adoption of holistic approaches, particularly the shift towards systems thinking methodologies.

4.1 Trends, Gaps, and Opportunities in Flood Risk Management Research

Understanding trends, gaps, and opportunities in flood risk management studies is important as it helps identify areas where research is lacking and which areas of research require more efforts. This is important as it can help improve flood risk management strategies and policies, leading to better outcomes for communities and individuals affected by flooding.

First, three significant trends were identified by this research: (1) flood is a global phenomenon affecting both developed and developing countries (McDermott 2022); (2) floods have become very complex, especially with increased climate change, population growth, and urbanization (Salmon et al. 2012; Cavallo and Ireland 2014; De Ruiter et al. 2020); and (3) there has been a shift towards community engagement in flood risk research (Perrone et al. 2020; Atanga 2020). All of these have necessitated a shift towards a more holistic approach. This study highlights a shift from linear to nonlinear methodologies such as systems thinking approaches to enhance our understanding of complex flood systems. However, the growing adoption of systems thinking approaches in flood risk management research is visible in most developed countries as opposed to less developed countries.

The low adoption of this holistic approach in less developed countries in flood risk management research could explain the implementation of reactive rather than proactive flood risk management measures as opposed to most developed countries. Through an in-depth examination of the literature, several challenges were identified as limiting factors to adopting the systems approach in flood risk management research, as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Challenges in systems thinking application in flood risk management research
Full size table

Despite the gaps and challenges, adopting a systems thinking approach presents several opportunities that could inherently improve our understanding of flood risk management research. Applying systems thinking in flood risk management research offers a holistic understanding of complex interdependencies within flood systems, utilizing methodologies such as causal loop diagrams to identify feedback mechanisms and dynamic behaviors (Anisah et al. 2022; Awah et al. 2024). This approach considers physical, social, economic, and environmental factors, allowing stakeholders to pinpoint flood risk catalysts, trade-offs, and synergies, ultimately informing the development of more efficient and resilient flood risk management strategies (Rehman et al. 2019; Mai et al. 2020). Moreover, systems thinking fosters stakeholder collaboration, encourages interdisciplinary cooperation, and enhances inclusive decision making, making it a comprehensive and effective approach to addressing flood-related challenges (Perrone et al. 2020; Zevenbergen et al. 2020; Chang et al. 2021; Shmueli et al. 2021; Tate et al. 2021; Maskrey et al. 2022; Mehryar and Surminski 2022).

Table 3 presents some studies on systems thinking, its related methodologies, and its application in flood risk management research. It also identifies gaps and opportunities for applying systems thinking in flood risk management research. The findings and conclusions of these studies have prompted the further exploration of this methodology in Cameroon, a developing country in West Africa that faces recurrent floods annually. The study employed the systems thinking approach to collaboratively engage stakeholders to develop an integrated flood risk management framework to build resilience in flood-prone communities (Awah et al. 2024).

Table 3 Systems thinking application in flood risk management research
Full size table

4.2 Application of Systems Thinking to Flood Risk Management Policy Discourse

The systems thinking approach is increasingly recognized as important in understanding and managing flood risks. This approach provides comprehensive methods to assess flood risks, identify interactions, and quantify feedbacks within systems (De Bruijn 2005; Schröter et al. 2021). Integrating the systems approach into flood risk management can lead to more cost-effective and resilient strategies (Mai et al. 2020). The transition from risk-based to resilience-based flood management is highlighted by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, emphasizing the need for more resilient and sustainable approaches to cope with flood disasters (Wang et al. 2022; Vitale 2023). The policy discourse on systems approach and flood risk management research should focus on integrating resilience into flood risk governance and policy, addressing institutional stability, participatory practices, and sustainable flood risk management (Moon et al. 2017; Graveline and Germain 2022). Additionally, there is a need to move the discourse toward a resilience-focused approach, taking into account perspectives from engineering, ecology, and social sciences. Adopting a systems approach in flood risk management enhances resilience and sustainability. The discourse on holistic approaches to disaster resilience is closely tied to systems thinking approaches. The policy discourse should be targeted at policymakers and stakeholders at national and international levels (Kaufmann and Wiering 2022) to promote the integration of the systems approaches to flood risk management policies and strategies, as attaining resilience requires a coordinated effort at the national and international levels to ensure effective implementation and to address the drivers of policy change.

5 Conclusion

The concept of systems thinking has been widely explored across various domains, significantly enhancing the comprehension of systems thinking methodologies. However, its application in comprehending flood risks has been notably limited. This study revealed an upward trend in the adoption of systems thinking methodologies in flood risk management. However, developing countries still lag when it comes to its methodological application hence more research is required to understand why this disparity persists particularly in developing countries. The study systematically reviewed published research indexed in Scopus and WoS and a bibliographic analysis using R-Studio for the selected 132 published materials between 2002 and 2022. The United States, China, and Canada were the leading countries in scientific production within the study period. The journal Science of the Total Environment had the highest source impact of publications on systems thinking and flood risk management. Considering that many developing countries, particularly in Africa, continue to suffer significant losses due to the increasing frequency and intensity of floods resulting from climate change, this study advocates for a reorientation of research and policy efforts. The focus should be on research that enables a holistic approach to flood risk management. With the growing emphasis on advancing the Sendai Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals, there is a burgeoning interest in transitioning from linear to non-linear approaches for sustainable mitigation of flood risk hazards. It is anticipated that scientific production using this methodology will likely increase over time, especially given the heightened interest of prominent research organizations such as the World Bank.

The study is limited by the fact that it solely relied on publications indexed in the Scopus and WoS databases, thereby limiting its scope. Other comprehensive bibliographic databases, such as PubMed, Dimension, and Lens.org were not included. Also, including other languages such as French and Chinese, among others presents an opportunity for further exploration of this research area. It is recommended that in-depth research be conducted to examine the application of the systems thinking approach in disaster management generally, not just in flood research. This study underscores the value of applying a systems thinking approach to enhance the understanding of flood risk. A promising avenue for advancement involves active engagement with governmental and funding entities, urging them to allocate resources for this research. The potential outcomes of this approach surpass conventional statistical methodologies, offering more practical insights. While this methodology has proven innovative and successful in certain applications, its universal implementation may pose challenges under various circumstances.