## 2 Resilience  
This section summarizes the definitions of resilience during the last 35 years. In 1988, [PERSON] [23] defined resilience as \"the capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest, learning to bounce back\". It is worth noting that two base principles were considered: 1. prevention and 2. learning from the paper for future events. Later, [PERSON] et al. [24] expanded the previous definition by considering resilience as \"the buffer capacity or the ability to a system to absorb perturbation, or magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before a system changes its structure by changing the variables\". Moreover, [25] described resilience by considering \"individuals, group and organizations, and systems\". In 1998, [PERSON] [26] applied the concept to healthcare systems by defining it as \"the ability of an individual or organization to expeditiously design and implement positive adaptive behaviors matched to the immediate situation, while enduring minimal stress\". In 1999, [27] considered inside resilience the possibility of an \"amount of assistance from outside the community\", meaning (1) the eventuality of help from the outside and (2) the application of resilience to the community scale. Furthermore, [28] developed resilience as \"the capacity to adapt existing resources and skills to new systems and operating conditions\", by including (1) the capacity and (2) adaptation to external events. Twenty-three years ago, [29] proposed a modern definition of resilience as \"an active process of self-righting, learned resourcefulness and growth the ability to function psychologically at a level far greater than expected given the individual's capabilities and previous experiences\", which considered (1) resilience a process, (2) the psychological contribution to resilience, and (3) the active role of individuals. Moreover, [30; 31; 32] considered resilience based on the mutual correlation of technical, organizational, social, and economic dimensions. In particular, they developed analytical formulations to quantitatively calculate resilience by including recovery time (the period necessary to restore the functionality of the system to an acceptable level) but neglecting the role of the delay time inside the formulation. A comprehensive definition of resilience was proposed by the Hyogo Framework, [33] which proposed to consider resilience \"the capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase this capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures\". This definition considers several aspects: the social dimension of resilience, the importance of learning from the past, community exposure, the possibility of change, the need to define some levels of performance, and the importance of future protection actions. These contributions are herein considered to extend the state-of-the-art methodologies to assess resilience in order to account for two fundamental aspects in the computation of resilience. Firstly, it is important to include delay time that may considerably reduce the resilience of the system. Second, the paper considers the accuracy of pre-earthquake S2 HM important, even if it has been investigated extensively in the literature; the quantification of them inside resilience is a gap that this paper aims to cover.