## 4 Empirical Analysis
### Evaluation Criteria Analysis  
Before analyzing the evaluation criteria, we verified the questionnaire's consistency. The Consistency Ratio (CR) is calculated according to the comparison matrix Consistency Index (CI) and n size and is calculated using the average random index of multiple comparison matrices CI [82]. In general, if CR is less than 0.1, consistency is good, and a level of 0.1-0.2 is determined to be appropriate. The CR of the 25 samples used in this analysis was 0.124, indicating appropriate consistency. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Main Category** & **Sub-Category** & **Details of Evaluation Criteria** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Purpose compliance} & Prevention of life safety & The level of conforming with the purpose of life safety prevention \\ \cline{2-3}  & CCTV replacement/complementary effects & Detecting anomalies that cannot be solved solely by CCTV images \\ \cline{2-3}  & Conformity to relevant policies & The level of compliance with government and local government policies \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Service suitability} & Service performances/effects & Performance and effectiveness of the service itself (e.g., accident prevention and incident reaction) \\ \cline{2-3}  & Competitiveness versus existing services & Level of competitiveness compared with existing facilities/technologies/services \\ \cline{2-3}  & Market demand growth & Technology trends and the extent of market potential in the corresponding service sector \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Service feasibility} & Economic efficiency & Effectiveness compared to investment, economic efficiency, and commercialization potential \\ \cline{2-3}  & & Risk management (e.g., personal information and administrative delays) and levels of cooperation with related organizations (e.g., 112, 119, and local governments) \\ \cline{2-3}  & Operational sustainability & Efficient management operation and long-term service sustainability \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Evaluation criteria. Figure 2: Hierarchy structure. For pairwise comparison analysis of the second and third classes, which are the evaluation criteria classes, we constructed a matrix based on the aforementioned fuzzy scale and then calculated the geometric mean value of the fuzzy preference. Based on this, the TFN value per evaluation criterion and eigenvector value of the minimum value for defuzzification, or the final weights, were calculated. The TFN values, reported in Table 4, of the second class were: purpose compliance had values of 0.24, 0.34, and 0.46, service suitability had values of 0.24, 0.33, and 0.47, and service feasibility had values of 0.24, 0.33, and 0.46. The final calculated normalized weight was the highest for purpose compliance (0.387), followed by service suitability (0.333) and service feasibility (0.331). The configuration of a service model such as prevention of life safety and CCTV complementary effects may be considered to be important to appropriately use special equipment like thermal cameras. We also calculated TFN and weights per evaluation criteria of three classes in the same manner. The results are reported in Table 5. For the TFN of purpose compliance, prevention of life safety had values of 0.28, 0.39, and 0.54, CCTV replacement/complementary effects had values of 0.24, 0.34, and 0.48, and conformity to relevant policies had values of 0.19, 0.26, and 0.37. Prevention of life safety had the highest weight (0.394), followed by CCTV replacement/complementary effects (0.337) and conformity to relevant policies (0.270). Thus, citizens' life safety anomaly prevention was a top priority, and the complementary effect of abnormal situations that cannot be solved only by CCTVs was considered more important than governments' policies. In terms of TFN of service suitability, service performances/effects had values of 0.29, 0.41, and 0.58, competitiveness versus existing services had values of 0.21, 0.29, and 0.40, and market demand growth had values of 0.22, 0.30, and 0.41.