## 2 Development of Seismic Resilience of Modern Urban Communities  
### Establishment of a Resilience Assessment Framework for Integrated CISs-Communities  
Earthquakes have long posed a grave threat to modern communities situated in earthquake-prone regions worldwide [35; 36; 37]. Statistical studies consistently reveal the devastating impact of earthquakes on urban communities, resulting in significant loss of life and socio-economic damage [38; 39; 40; 41; 42]; additionally, recovery from such events is often challenging [43; 44]. In response, the concept of earthquake-resilient communities has assumed greater importance. These communities are expected to remain robust even during seismic hazards and have the capacity to restore functionality afterwards; therefore, they have been widely recognized as the cornerstone for the sustainable development of their respective regions [45]. The concept of resilience, initially rooted in the study of ecosystems, has gained prominence since the early 1970s [46]. In recent years, community resilience has emerged as a critical focal point, particularly within the context of disaster risk mitigation. This shift was underscored during the 2005 World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR), where community resilience was positioned as a pivotal element in shaping the future sustainability of communities [47]. In continuation, [PERSON] [48] underscored that achieving the goal of resilience and sustainability for urban communities necessitates concerted efforts across diverse societal sectors from a political perspective. [PERSON] et al. [20] significantly advanced the pursuit of resilient communities by proposing a comprehensive definition of hazard resilience in urban areas. Their framework involves diverse strategies aimed at minimizing losses from hazard events, including mitigation and recovery efforts; additionally, the concept of resilience can be delineated across four key dimensions: technical, organizational, societal, and economic. Notably, the technical and economic dimensions directly impact the resilience of CISs, whereas the remaining two dimensions provide valuable insights into the overall community resilience. Building upon the foundation laid by [PERSON] et al. [20], [PERSON] et al. [21] established a general assessment framework for hazard resilience of CISs. Within this framework, the gross functionality losses throughout the entire event serve as a direct measure of the resilience of CISs of interest. To that end, hazard events are temporally divided into three distinct phases: hazard prevention, damage absorption, and post-hazard recovery. Additionally, [PERSON] et al. [22] extended this research by proposing a supply-demand resilience assessment framework. This framework tracks both the functionality supply from CISs and the corresponding demand from the community in which these CISs are embedded. Throughout the three aforementioned phases, the deliverable functionality of CISs (abbreviated as \"DF,\" essentially the supply) and the community demand (abbreviated as \"D\") evolve. After a shocking event like an earthquake, both the supply and demand take time to reach their minimum levels, signifying the end of the absorption phases, as shown in Figure 1.  
Figure 1: The supply–demand resilience assessment framework for CISs–community under hazard events. Subsequently, they begin to recover until they reach a new post-shock equilibrium at time points \(t_{fs}\) and \(t_{fld}\), respectively. Notably, in urban communities affected by calamitous earthquakes, post-shock recovery can span years [49], significantly surpassing the duration of their absorption phases. Meanwhile, as depicted in Figure 1, the recovery trajectory of the CIS-community need not follow a monotonic pattern; instead, it may exhibit volatility due to various additional disruptions (such as aftershock sequences related to earthquake hazards).