## 3 Analysis
### Comparative Analysis of CPT
Furthermore, complaints concerning road facilities and those categorized as \"others\" reported from roads received prioritization over all other complaint types, except roadkill/rockslide. Thirdly, complaints reported from SOC facilities were statistically significant in general; however, none were processed particularly quickly, with poor road condition complaints requiring longer processing times on average compared to other types. Finally, no significant differences in CPTs were observed at the 95% confidence level for railways. However, at the 90% confidence level, the complaint type \"others\" was processed quicker than those related to poor road conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Civil Complaint Types** & **Reported Civil Complaint Locations** & **Areas Around Buildings** & **Neighborhood Facilities** & **Road** & **SOC Facilities** & **Railway** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Poor road condition} & Areas around buildings & & 0.969 & 0.373 & 0.000 * & 0.691 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Neighborhood facilities & 0.031 * & & 0.004 * & 0.000 * & 0.448 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Road & 0.627 & 0.996 & & 0.000 * & 0.718 \\ \cline{2-6}  & SOC facilities & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & & 0.998 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Railway & 0.309 & 0.552 & 0.282 & 0.002 * & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Poor road facility condition} & Areas around buildings & & 0.001 * & 0.000 * & 0.044 * & 0.282 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Neighborhood facilities & 0.999 & & 0.565 & 0.330 & 0.678 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Road & 1.000 & 0.435 & & 0.309 & 0.669 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & SOC facilities & 0.956 & 0.670 & 0.691 & & 0.755 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Railway & 0.718 & 0.322 & 0.331 & 0.245 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: One-tailed \(t\) test results for the average CPTs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Civil Complaint Types** & **Reported Civil Complaint Locations** & **Areas Around Buildings** & **Neighborod Facilities** & **Road** & **SOC Facilities** & **Railway** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Roadkill/rockslide} & Areas around buildings & & 0.045 * & 0.167 & - & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & Neighborhood facilities & 0.955 & & 0.822 & - & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & Road & 0.833 & 0.178 & & - & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & SOC facilities & - & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & Railway & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Poor drainage facilities} & Areas around buildings & & 0.528 & 0.079 ** & 0.410 & 0.481 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Neighborhood facilities & 0.472 & & 0.045 * & 0.409 & 0.476 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Road & 0.921 & 0.955 & & 0.590 & 0.608 \\ \cline{2-6}  & SOC facilities & 0.590 & 0.591 & 0.410 & & 0.541 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Railway & 0.519 & 0.524 & 0.392 & 0.459 & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Pothole} & Areas around buildings & & 0.878 & 0.975 & 0.781 & 0.612 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Neighborhood facilities & 0.122 & & 0.616 & 0.594 & 0.477 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Road & 0.025 * & 0.384 & & 0.553 & 0.450 \\ \cline{2-6}  & SOC facilities & 0.219 & 0.406 & 0.447 & & 0.425 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Railway & 0.388 & 0.523 & 0.550 & 0.575 & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Others} & Areas around buildings & & 0.046 * & 0.024 * & 0.066 ** & 0.778 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Neighborhood facilities & 0.954 & & 0.528 & 0.214 & 0.880 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Road & 0.976 & 0.472 & & 0.205 & 0.878 \\ \cline{2-6}  & SOC facilities & 0.934 & 0.786 & 0.795 & & 0.940 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Railway & 0.222 & 0.120 & 0.122 & 0.060 ** & \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Significance level: 0.05 (\(\alpha\) = 0.05); ** significance level: 0.1 (\(\alpha\) = 0.1).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._