This study used publicly available reports to characterize priorities and trends across communities. Because these data were not gathered from individuals and involve no direct interaction with human participants, this study does not require human subjects research approval through the Boston University Institutional Review Board.

Hazard frequencies were similar across communities (Figure 2A). Flooding was mentioned proportionately the most within reports, accounting for a median of 44.7% (IQR 30.2%‐58.7%) of mentioned hazards per report. Next most common were storms (29.1%, IQR 20.5%‐38.4%), heat (4.5%, IQR 0.3%‐9.8%), and extreme precipitation (3%, IQR 1.2%‐5.8%).

Flooding and storms were also mentioned most often across reports, with each hazard appearing in 97.6% of reports. Extreme precipitation and heat were the third (86.2%) and fourth (79.7%) (see Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1). Air pollution, indoor air, chemical hazards, and fire were discussed less frequently.

Surveys had the highest mentions by proportion within reports (Figure 2B), with a median proportion of 42.2% (IQR 17.1%‐75.5%) of all outreach terms. Community meetings amounted to 17.6% of per-report mentions (IQR 3.3%-32.3%), followed by workshops with 9.1% (IQR 0%-39.2%).

Surveys were also mentioned most often across reports, appearing in 94.3% of reports. Community meetings and workshops were also frequently mentioned, appearing in 78% and 65.9% of reports, respectively (see Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1).

Outreach strategies varied by community. For example, the IQR of per-report percent of survey terms was 17.1% to 75.5%, and for community meeting it was 3.3% to 35.3%.

Semiautomated methods captured and summarized municipal text addressing climate resilience in the Greater Boston Inner Core. Concerns related to climate hazards were consistent across the study area and predominantly cited flooding and storms, despite variation in population size, median income, and proximity to water. Though helpful for policy prioritization, homogeneous climate concerns may signify gaps in acknowledgment of other key hazards—for example, heat [8]. Reported outreach strategies were less consistent across communities, which may indicate opportunities for coordination across cities and towns.

This study provides an approach to surveying past initiatives that is more scalable than a manual literature review and leverages content analysis as an effective means of analyzing municipal broadcasts. It builds upon Divay and Micheau’s [9] content analysis of citizen engagement and recognition by focusing on a policy area. It shares content analysis methodology with the assessment by Tang et al [10] of smart city archetypes and adds a semiautomated approach to document retrieval and analysis.

While our Google search methodology is generalizable, search criteria and restrictions may have impacted our sample. Additionally, our dictionary approach may miss references to hazards or outreach and does not account for hazard co-occurrence. While our qualitative evaluation of 21 initial climate resilience reports helped us anticipate document content, we may have missed terminology or conversations unique to specific municipalities. Additionally, the frequency of community outreach terms does not reflect the breadth, depth, or impact of outreach and may not represent on-the-ground engagement. Finally, we cannot infer the rationale behind highlighted hazards without additional policy context.

As weather events become more extreme and communities work in parallel to develop action plans, community coalitions may use semiautomated techniques to identify and synthesize publicly available municipal reports related to climate hazards. With limited resources available for climate mitigation, pooling concerns could lead to shared strategies that benefit multiple communities. Additional research may explore how variation in policy discussion is tied to municipal characteristics such as population density, income, or proximity to natural environments.