## 5 Results and Discussion  
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the survey's participants. The table shows that the participants were divided almost equally between males and females. The number of male participants was 51 (48.5%), whereas the number of female participants was 54 (51.5%). Thus, the points of view and challenges of both genders are given unprejudiced. One hundred and five participants agreed with the survey, while seven refused to participate. The high (94%) response means there was interest in sharing their challenges and difficulties. Responses were collected across different age groups, which helps map the perspective of all age groups and the differences in their preferences. The number of participants in the 18-24 age group was 23 (21.90%); 24 participants were in the 25-34 age group (22.86%); the largest group was 35-44, with 28 participants (26.67%); the 45-54 group had 20 participants (19.05%); and the least number of participants were in the 55-64 age group, with 10 participants (9.52%). The educational qualifications among the participants varied: the majority were secondary school graduates, 40 participants (38.10%), and holders of bachelor's degrees, 36 participants (34.28%). Those with less than secondary education accounted for 20 participants (19.05%), diploma holders comprised 5 participants (4.76%), and there were 3 master's degree holders and 1 PhD holder. There were three categories of mobility devices employed by the respondents, with the highest being manual wheelchairs used by 62 participants (59.05%), followed by powered wheelchairs used by 37 participants, and, lastly, mobility via prosthetic limbs used by 6 participants. Most respondents said \"yes\" to independent mobility out of residence. Overall, 78 out of 105 responded that they can navigate themselves for leisure or city life. However, 27 participants responded \"no\", meaning not at all to navigate independently; this implied that there is inconsistency in the levels of mobility for people with disabilities. The nearly equal participation of both genders across various age groups and with different mobility devices allows for recommendations to be made to improve accessibility in urban areas for people with disabilities based on this diverse sample. The survey was distributed to the Centers for People with Disabilities in three cities, Riyadh, Qassim, and Hail, to collect data on the mobility difficulties faced by PWD and the most critical factors. At the beginning of the survey, PWD were asked if they faced challenges when using assistive devices, and the majority (80.9%) answered yes. Most reported that mobility challenges hindered their access to health services, educational institutions, workplaces, and shopping areas. The findings direct urgent attention to improving infrastructure, enhancing accessibility, and ensuring the safety of PWD in urban environments. Initially, the importance of the criteria was determined for each participant by evaluating the criteria from 1 to 4 according to individual preferences, where the criterion with a high importance of 1 is assessed with fuzzy numbers, and the criterion with a high importance of 2 takes the fuzzy numbers, and so on. Then, using the measurements for the criteria, all the route parameters, ranging from 0 to 10, were fuzzified and normalized as shown in Table 3. For instance, the first route, R1, spanned 1850 m in Riyadh City and featured a single junction, a 10.9% footpath absence, and a 6.22% slope, all of which underwent fuzzification, as illustrated in Tables 4 and 5. In R1, length and slope corresponded to very low (VL), number of junctions and absence of footpath corresponded to high (H), and so on for all routes. Table 5 presents the linguistic scale converted into triangular fuzzy numbers. For instance, the first participant rated the criteria to assess their importance as the following: length as 4, very low importance, number of junctions as 1, very high importance, absence of footpath as 2, and slope as 3.