## 5 Conclusions
There were large differences in resilience development levels among the three stages of pressure, state, and response, manifested by a large improvement in state resilience, decreased pressure resilience, while the response resilience remained unchanged in the fluctuation. In other words, the uncoordinated development level of three stages in four cities was also a major reason for low resilience, especially in stages of pressure and state. The change of a certain pressure factor or state factor would affect the overall structure of the urban infrastructure system, thus forming a new state-response relationship: a new cycle. Therefore, in constructing resilient infrastructure, full attention should be paid to the coupling and circular relationship among various elements to achieve dynamic evaluation and management. In the three stages, improving the overall resilience of UI from the response capacity is most critical and effective. Overall, cities should pay attention to emergency capacity building, strengthen the technical support of emergency management, and accelerate the application of emerging technologies in urban emergency management, such as accelerating the application of emerging technologies such as big data, cloud computing and artificial intelligence. Conceptualization, [PERSON] and Y.W. ; methodology, Y.J. and M.C. ; software, Y.J. ; validation, M.C., J.Z. and Y.W. ; formal analysis, Y.J. ; data curation, Y.J. ; writing--original draft preparation, Y.J. and Y.W. ; writing--review and editing, E.W., Y.W., J.Z. and M.C. ; visualization, Y.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. **Funding:** This work was supported by the Ministry of Housing Urban-Rural Development of China (2019K014) and the Practice and Innovation Fund for University Students of Jiangsu Province (201910304039Z). **Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. **Appendix A**  
**Table A1. Weights of indicator in the urban Infrastructure evaluation system. ** \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Function Layer** & **Criterion Layer** & **Factor Layer** & **Weights (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Pressure} & \multirow{4}{*}{Natural pressure} & Torrential rain days & 1.27 \\  & & Extremely hot days & 2.30 \\  & & The equivalent magnitude of near-source earthquakes for city & 6.83 \\  & & Days above strong gale & 1.69 \\  & & Population density & 2.42 \\  & & Urbanization rate & 4.61 \\  & & Total wastewater discharge & 5.20 \\  & & Industrial SO2 emissions & 3.37 \\  & & Industrial dust emission & 2.21 \\  & & Per capita area of paved roads & 4.46 \\  & & The number of public vehicles per 10,000 persons & 3.32 \\  & & Water coverage rate & 1.18 \\  & & Gas coverage rate & 1.26 \\  & & Losses converted into cash by fires & 1.45 \\  & & Losses converted into cash by traffic accidents & 1.01 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Sate} & \multirow{2}{*}{Economic benefits} & Density of drainpipe density in the built-up area & 5.69 \\  & & Length of highway & 5.83 \\  & & Urban green space per capita & 3.02 \\  & & Water resources per capita & 7.23 \\  & & benefits & Power consumption per capita & 1.58 \\  & & Gas consumption per capita & 2.69 \\  & & Sewage treatment rate & 2.42 \\  & & Innocuous treatment rate of living garbage & 2.70 \\  & & Newly added civil air defence engineering area & 5.57 \\  & & The proportion of urban infrastructure maintenance and & 3.58 \\ Response & & construction funds to GDP & 3.58 \\  & & Hospital beds per 10,000 population & 2.79 \\  & & Mobile phone coverage rate & 2.61 \\  & & Internet coverage rate & 3.63 \\  & & The ratio of intramural expenditure on R\&D and GDP & 3.69 \\  & & R\&D personnel & 4.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}   
**Table A2. Scores in pressure resiliencelevels from 2002 to 2018.