## 3 Results
### Results of Relative Contribution Analysis  
The results of linear regression slope analysis of each type are presented in Appendix A. The calculation results of the relative contributions obtained using the eigenvectors of the urban ERS for each type are the same as those shown in Table 5 and Figure 6. Both the CI and CR values, which are indices of the consistency of the eigenvectors, showed a significance level within 0.1, and the contribution analysis results were analyzed with the assumption that pairwise comparison was valid. The contribution of the ERS in the study area was in the order of heat reduction capacity (0.2964), flood reduction capacity (0.2815), carbon storage capacity (0.2374), and vegetation vitality (0.1847). It was confirmed that such contributions differ, depending on the type of urban space. Type A had the highest contribution in flood reduction, types B-E had the highest contribution in heat reduction, while type F had the highest contribution in carbon storage. In addition, all six types were similar in that they had the lowest contribution in vegetation vitality. The standard deviations of the relative contributions by type show a distribution of 0.043 to 0.1460. The closer the standard deviation value is to 0, the better the regulating service is in ideal harmony. Considering the contribution of the entire study area, as the standard deviation is 0.0435, it is roughly balanced, but clearly the regulating service by type is not balanced. Type A has a standard deviation of 0.0744, which is the most harmonious regulating service compared with the other types, while types B-D have a standard deviation of 0.1 or greater. The reason for this is that the contribution of vegetation vitality within the region was calculated to be lower than that of other ERS. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Entire**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type A**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type B**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type D**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type E**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type F**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Study Area**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 8378)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 3525)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 4530)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 4493)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(n = 2677)**} \\ \hline vegetation & amount & 12,571.80 & 6032.50 & 1420.10 & 1200.20 & 1382.80 & 1617.00 & 919.20 \\ vitality (NDVI) & mean & 0.45 & 0.72 & 0.40 & 0.26 & 0.30 & 0.36 & 0.34 \\ \hline flood reduction & amount & 573,656.24 & 218,565.20 & 69,231.00 & 72072.30 & 80,219.25 & 83,749.52 & 49,818.97 \\ capacity & mean & 20.38 & 26.10 & 19.64 & 15.91 & 17.65 & 18.64 & 18.61 \\ \hline carbon storage & amount & 426,963.5 & 272,008.8 & 51,257.2 & 23,031.7 & 28,802.1 & 29,684.4 & 22,179.3 \\ capacity & mean & 15.17 & 32.47 & 14.54 & 5.08 & 6.34 & 6.61 & 8.28 \\ heat reduction & amount & 5859.50 & 3904.30 & 795.50 & 100.40 & 259.80 & 529.40 & 270.10 \\ capacity & & & & & & & \\ (evapotranspiration & & & & & & & \\ (mm/day)) & mean & 0.21 & 0.47 & 0.23 & 0.02 & 0.06 & 0.12 & 0.11 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: ERS for the entire study area and six types. Figure 6: Results of the relative contribution analysis of urban ERS spider diagram.