## 2 Materials and Methods
### Assessment of Urban-Rural Gradient of EFs  
We distinguished several levels of urban intensity: (i) the urban core, characterized by continuous development; (ii) the suburban area, where discontinuous development predominates, sometimes interspersed with other habitat types; (iii) the peri-urban area,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Functional Group**} & **Area** & **Evapotranspiration** & **Biomass Prod.** \\  & & **(km\({}^{2}\))** & **(L\(\cdot\)m\({}^{-2}\cdot\)year\({}^{-1}\))** & **(kg\(\cdot\)m\({}^{-2}\cdot\)year\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline
1 & Water bodies & 675 & 600 & 1.67 \\
2 & Peatbops & 23 & 750 & 0.2 \\
3 & Other wetlands & 364 & 750 & 2.03 \\
4 & Extensively managed mesic meadows and pastures & 2601 & 550 & 1.05 \\
5 & Intensively managed mesic meadows and pastures & 5579 & 500 & 1.39 \\
6 & Degraded mesic meadows, pastures, and healthands & 4609 & 400 & 0.8 \\
7 & Dry dense grasslands & 40 & 300 & 0.7 \\
8 & Dry open grasslands & 172 & 300 & 0.4 \\
9 & Xerophilous scrubs & 426 & 300 & 0.8 \\
10 & Mesic scrubs & 1959 & 400 & 1.06 \\
11 & Wet scrubs & 17 & 600 & 1.16 \\
12 & Dry pine forests & 298 & 300 & 0.9 \\
13 & Other confierous forests & 6050 & 500 & 1.56 \\
14 & Damaged confierous forests & 8222 & 400 & 1.25 \\
15 & Deciduous forests & 6636 & 700 & 1.79 \\
16 & Degraded deciduous forests, culticenosis & 1632 & 500 & 1.28 \\
17 & Alluvial forests & 924 & 800 & 2.03 \\
18 & Solitary trees, alleys & 1276 & 500 & 1.43 \\
19 & Arable land: habitats of cereals and root-crops & 27,605 & 300 & 0.9 \\
20 & Arable land: habitats of fodder crops and perennial plants & 141 & 350 & 1.98 \\
21 & Areas without vegetation & 2938 & 100 & 0 \\
22 & Rocks habitats & 113 & 200 & 0.2 \\
23 & Other natural and near-natural habitats & 3780 & 569 & 1.51 \\
24 & Other more anthropic affected habitats & 2787 & 342 & 0.96 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: EFs performance values estimated for functional groups of habitats in the CR according to [99].  
which is an interface between the rural and the urban space, where there is an even smaller proportion of built-up areas; (iv) adjacent rural landscapes.  
The spatial analysis of the urban-rural gradient of assessed ecosystem function was carried out using the buffer gradient analysis method, which is based on a series of equidistant buffer zones established starting from a circle in the urban core. The city center was defined as the geometric center (centroid) of the polygon of urban core area, which is identical to the historical city center. In Liberec, it was possible to identify only one centroid. In Decin, due to the historical development that took place on both banks of the Elbe River, it was necessary to identify two focal points. A concentric buffer with 0.5 km intervals was created around the urban core area. In each ring section, the values of individual EFs were calculated.  
Since Decin does not have a typical city center, and the built-up areas are located in a narrow strip along the river, the gradient analysis was also carried out between the river and the outer landscape. A buffer of 0.5 km was created around the part of the Elbe (in Decin) and the Neisse (in Liberec) to form the central river polygon. Equidistant buffer zones with a distance of 0.5 km were established around these river polygons. In each section, the values of individual EFs were calculated.  
Spatial data analysis and map outputs were processed in the ArcGIS environment (ArcGIS Desktop 10.7.1 ESRI, 2019 and ArcGIS Pro 2.8.0 ESRI, 2021).