## 3 Analysis
### Comparative Analysis of CPT  
The comparative analysis of CPTs has thus far been based solely on average values, without considering the diversification effect per complaint type or reported civil complaint location. To address this, a one-tailed significance test was conducted for the average CPTs across various complaint types and locations, guided by the following null and alternative hypotheses:  
\[\text{Null hypothesis (H}_{0})\text{: }\mu_{1}-\mu_{2}=0, \tag{1}\]  
\[\text{Alternative hypothesis (H}_{1})\text{: }\mu_{1}-\mu_{2}<0, \tag{2}\]  
where \(\mu_{1}\) and \(\mu_{2}\) represent the average CPTs for the comparison targets. Figure 1: Distribution of CPTs by complaint types. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Civil Complaint Types**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Average CPT (Unit: Hour)**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Areas Around Buildings** & **Neighbored Facilities** & **Road** & **SOC Facilities** & **Railway** \\ \hline Poor road condition & 178.6 & 171.2 & 179.7 & 232.8 & 172.7 \\ \hline Poor facility condition & 160.5 & 172.9 & 172.4 & 177.9 & 167.1 \\ \hline Roadkill/rockslide & 106.6 & 127.3 & 117.7 & - & - \\ \hline Poor drainage facilities & 168.4 & 167.7 & 182.4 & 174.8 & - \\ \hline Pothole & 189.6 & 179.3 & 177.2 & 174.8 & 181.0 \\ \hline Others & 156.6 & 163.1 & 162.9 & 172.5 & 147.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Average CPTs by complaint location. Table 4 presents the results from the one-tailed tests for the average CPTs of the reported complaint locations by complaint types. Firstly, the results indicate that the average processing times for poor road conditions in areas around buildings, neighborhood facilities, roads, and railways were not statistically significant. However, complaints categorized as poor road conditions in SOC facilities were processed statistically faster than those reported from other locations. Secondly, it was revealed that complaints regarding poor road conditions reported from areas around neighborhood facilities were processed significantly faster than those from areas around buildings or roads. Complaints pertaining to poor road facility conditions did not exhibit significant differences in processing times across most locations; however, complaints from areas around buildings were processed more quickly than those from neighborhood facilities, roads, and SOC facilities. Thirdly, for the complaints of roadkill/rockslide, location generally did not significantly influence the average processing time, although complaints from areas around buildings were processed quicker than those from neighborhood facilities. Fourthly, complaints regarding poor drainage facilities exhibited statistically shorter processing times when occurring in areas around buildings and neighborhood facilities compared to those reported from roads. In other cases, no significant differences were observed. Finally, complaints concerning potholes reported from roads were processed more quickly than those from areas around buildings, although similar processing times were noted in other comparisons. In addition, the complaint type categorized as \"others\" reported from areas around buildings had shorter processing times than when reported from neighborhood facilities, SOC facilities, and roads. Table 5 shows test results on the differences in average CPTs per complaint type across various locations. Firstly, among the complaints reported from areas around buildings, roadkill/rockslide was processed more rapidly than all other complaint types at the 95% confidence level. On the other hand, complaints categorized as potholes were processed slower than all other types within the same confidence level. Notably, complaints related to road facilities were resolved quicker than those pertaining to poor road conditions. Secondly, with respect to complaints from neighborhood facilities and roads, roadkill/rockslide was addressed first compared to other types at the 95% confidence level.