## 5 Results and Discussion
Figure 4: Average accessibility index _ACI_ for all participants with a level of accessibility. As previously mentioned, the length criterion alone cannot determine whether a route suits PWD. For instance, when considering that the R7 length was 737 m, with a low rating, and comparing it to R1, which is 1850 m long with a'very low' length rating and is considered very long for PWD, and the average accessibility index for R1 was 0.35, higher than R7 (0.21). These results agree with the findings of previous studies [13; 14; 15; 18] that the length and time criteria alone are insufficient indicators. Figure 4 clearly shows two routes (R5 and R10) with a'medium' level of accessibility. The common features include a rating of'medium' to'very high' for the number of junctions and'medium' to 'high' for the absence of a footpath, while the other criteria vary. The length rating was high in R10 and very low in R5, while the slope rating was medium in R5 and R10. The criteria that contributed to these routes having a medium level of accessibility include the number of junctions and the absence of footpaths. The presence of footpaths provides them with safe mobility for moving efficiently and safely away from the dangers of walking out of a footpath, such as entering a road. The presence of junctions in routes reduces connectivity; routes such as R5 and R3, rated highly, provide better connectivity. Lower ratings suggest many junctions, which might complicate navigation. All other routes had a low level of accessibility, with their length ratings ranging from very low to low. Slopes were mostly'very low' to 'low', where they were very steep, which can significantly reduce accessibility for individuals with mobility impairments, except for R6, which was medium, while other criteria were varied. The second worst route was R9, which had'very low' ratings for the number of junctions and length; this route had many long junctions, limiting its usability and accessibility. When taking a comprehensive view of all routes, the best route does not exceed the medium accessibility index of 0.50 and less, meaning that all routes lie below the medium level, as there are only two routes at the medium level. These findings suggest a deficiency in accessibility for PWD, a finding supported by both the results and the survey responses. The participants, who included users of manual wheelchairs, powered wheelchairs, and artificial limbs, rated the criteria from 1 (high importance) to 4 (low importance). The average importance was calculated so that each participant could comprehend and recognize the significance of the criteria. If the average value approaches 1, it indicates the high importance of this criterion. Figure 6 illustrates this, with manual wheelchair users expressing the significance of the following criteria: length, slope, absence of a footpath, and number of junctions in that order. For powered wheelchair users, from the most important to the least important, there was the absence of a footpath, length, slopes, and junctions. Slope, length, absence of footpath, and number of junctions were the ranking criteria for the importance of artificial limb users. It is essential to consider these factors when making improvements to urban routes. While length is critical for manual wheelchair  
Figure 5: Participants’ responses regarding the maximum distance they can travel independently. users, in powered wheelchairs, the absence of a footpath was the most critical, and the slope was the most essential criterion for artificial limbs. For further details, Figure 7 displays the average accessibility index for various disabled persons' vehicles, which closely aligns with the overall average for all participants. There is a slight preference for powered wheelchair users, as they often require less effort than other vehicles. The critical reason is that the most essential criterion for this category was the absence of footpaths, as shown in Figure 5, and most routes received high ratings.