## 3 Results
### The Assessment of ESEV and ESV
During the period 2010-2016, the total ESEV in the study area decreased by 108,230, a decrease of 3.21%, and the comprehensive service capacity of the ecosystem was significantly weakened, which was mainly caused by the ESEV coefficients of the land ecosystem being reduced by varying degrees, although the ESEV coefficients of the water ecosystem increased slightly. In general, during 2004-2016, the total ESEV in the study area decreased by 58,140. The urbanization process made the built-up land occupy a large amount of ecological land, and the ESEV coefficients of the land ecosystem hardly increased. Although the ESEV gains from the increase in wetland \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Cropland** & **Forest** & **Grassland** & **Orchard** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Unused** \\ **and Other** \\ \end{tabular} & **River** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Wetland** \\ **and Lakes** \\ \end{tabular} & **Total** \\ \hline
2004 ESEV & 299.19 & 161.67 & 4.74 & 569.11 & 0.41 & 1665.98 & 621.98 & 3323.08 \\ \% & 9 & 4.87 & 0.14 & 17.13 & 0.01 & 50.13 & 18.72 & - \\
2010 ESEV & 319.63 & 240.55 & 55.63 & 286.08 & 2.89 & 1453.41 & 1014.98 & 3373.17 \\ \% & 9.62 & 7.24 & 1.67 & 8.61 & 0.09 & 43.74 & 30.54 & - \\
2016 ESEV & 270.7 & 218.87 & 40.65 & 241.34 & 3.25 & 1467.84 & 1022.29 & 3264.94 \\ \% & 8.15 & 6.59 & 1.22 & 7.26 & 0.1 & 44.17 & 30.76 & - \\
2004–2010 & 20.44 & 78.88 & 50.89 & \(-\)283.03 & 2.48 & \(-\)212.57 & 393 & 50.09 \\ Change & \multirow{3}{*}{6.83} & \multirow{3}{*}{48.79} & \multirow{3}{*}{1073.63} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)49.73} & \multirow{3}{*}{604.88} & \multirow{3}{*}{\(-\)12.76} & \multirow{3}{*}{63.19} & \multirow{3}{*}{1.51} \\ Change & & & & & & & \\ Change & & & & & & & \\ Change & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2}
2010–2016 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)48.93} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)21.68} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)14.98} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)44.74} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.36} & \multirow{2}{*}{14.43} & \multirow{2}{*}{7.31} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)108.23} \\ Change & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2}
2004–2016 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)28.49} & \multirow{2}{*}{57.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.91} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)327.77} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.84} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)198.14} & \multirow{2}{*}{400.31} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)58.14} \\ Change & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2}
2004–2016 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)9.52} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.38} & \multirow{2}{*}{757.59} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)57.59} & \multirow{2}{*}{692.68} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)11.89} & \multirow{2}{*}{64.36} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.75} \\ Change & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2}
2004–2016 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.83} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.56} & \multirow{2}{*}{19.61} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)6.9} & \multirow{2}{*}{18.83} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.05} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.23} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.15} \\ Change & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2}
2004–2016 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)28.49} & \multirow{2}{*}{57.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.91} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)327.77} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.84} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)198.14} & \multirow{2}{*}{400.31} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)58.14} \\ Change & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-2}
2004–2016 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)9.52} & \multirow{2}{*}{35.38} & \multirow{2}{*}{757.59} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)57.59} & \multirow{2}{*}{692.68} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)11.89} & \multirow{2}{*}{64.36} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.75} \\ \cline{2-2}
2004–2016 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.83} & \multirow{2}{*}{2.56} & \multirow{2}{*}{19.61} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)6.9} & \multirow{2}{*}{18.83} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)1.05} & \multirow{2}{*}{4.23} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.15} \\ change(\%) & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: The total ESEV of each land use and its changes (1000 ESEV). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Cropland** & **Forest** & **Grassland** & **Orchard** & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Unused** \\ **and Other** \\ \end{tabular}  & **River** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Wetland** \\ **and Lakes** \\ \end{tabular}