## 5 Results and Discussion
In the same way, the average accessibility index \(ACI\) for all participants with disabilities, manual wheelchair users, powered wheelchair users, and artificial limbs users was calculated (Table 11). Figure 4 shows the average accessibility index for all participants, with R10 having the highest ACI value of 0.50 and R7 having the lowest value of 0.21. The accessibility level includes five categories: very low accessibility, low accessibility, medium accessibility, high accessibility, and very high accessibility. Consequently, as shown in Figure 3, all routes have medium and low accessibility. The R10, which has medium accessibility, measures \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Route** & \(\widetilde{\widetilde{C}}_{i}\) & **Crisp Score (M)** & \(ACI\) \\ \hline R1 & 0.556 & 0.456 & 0.385 & 0.460 & 0.540 \\ R2 & 0.685 & 0.553 & 0.473 & 0.562 & 0.438 \\ R3 & 0.683 & 0.541 & 0.4472 & 0.549 & 0.451 \\ R4 & 0.556 & 0.456 & 0.385 & 0.460 & 0.540 \\ R5 & 0.324 & 0.283 & 0.257 & 0.285 & 0.715 \\ R6 & 0.668 & 0.503 & 0.394 & 0.513 & 0.487 \\ R7 & 0.820 & 0.669 & 0.600 & 0.683 & 0.317 \\ R8 & 0.771 & 0.616 & 0.540 & 0.629 & 0.371 \\ R9 & 0.872 & 0.770 & 0.713 & 0.778 & 0.222 \\ R10 & 0.745 & 0.548 & 0.414 & 0.558 & 0.442 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: The accessibility index \(ACI\) for all routes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Route** & \(\widetilde{S}_{i}^{+}\) & & \(\widetilde{S}_{i}^{-}\) & & & **(\(\widetilde{S}_{i}^{+}\)+\(\widetilde{S}_{i}^{-}\))** & \\ \hline R1 & 1.975 & 2.510 & 2.379 & 1.576 & 3.000 & 3.805 & 3.551 & 5.510 & 6.184 \\ R2 & 2.439 & 2.977 & 2.768 & 1.121 & 2.408 & 3.078 & 3.559 & 5.385 & 5.846 \\ R3 & 2.424 & 2.881 & 2.550 & 1.125 & 2.441398 m in length and has a high linguistic rating. It has a medium rating in some junctions with 2, a footpath absence rate of 33.32%, and a slope of 3.88%, as shown in Table 4.  
In contrast, the 737 m long R7, the least accessible route, has a low level of accessibility and is considered the worst among all routes. The medium number of junctions (two), 61.53% footpath absence, and very steep slope (7%) resulted in an overall low rating. When comparing R10 with the rest, it is the shortest length, and the other criteria received a medium linguistic rating--the second-best route after R10 was R5 due to its very high rating in the absence of junctions. The absence of a footpath received a high rating, while the slope received a medium rating, similar to that of R10. However, the route's length, 1083.5 m, received a very low rating, being considered relatively long for PWD, with an average accessibility index of 0.47. It had a medium level of accessibility similar to R10, as the evaluation of the criteria for them was close, and some criteria ratings were rated better in R5, but the evaluation of the length was very low. When participants were asked in the survey about the maximum distance they can travel independently, their responses were as follows: 35% of respondents can travel less than 100 m independently; 31% can travel between 100 and 300 m; 18% can travel more than 700 m; 10% can travel between 300 and 500 m; and 6% can travel between 500 and 700 m, as in the pie chart that is shown in Figure 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Route** & **All Participants** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Manual** \\ **Wheelchair** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Powered** \\ **Wheelchair** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Artificial** \\ **Limbs** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline R1 & 0.35 & 0.34 & 0.37 & 0.31 \\ R2 & 0.31 & 0.30 & 0.33 & 0.29 \\ R3 & 0.40 & 0.40 & 0.42 & 0.36 \\ R4 & 0.35 & 0.34 & 0.37 & 0.31 \\ R5 & 0.47 & 0.45 & 0.49 & 0.45 \\ R6 & 0.39 & 0.39 & 0.40 & 0.40 \\ R7 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 0.22 & 0.18 \\ R8 & 0.24 & 0.23 & 0.26 & 0.22 \\ R9 & 0.22 & 0.21 & 0.22 & 0.22 \\ R10 & 0.50 & 0.51 & 0.50 & 0.50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Average accessibility index _ACI_ for all participations.