Person and opportunity types

Factors which define the type of person or traveller include:

·         mobility, eg car owner/driver, physical and sensory disability

·         employment status, eg unemployed, economically active, job seeker

·         age, eg retired, adult, child

·         cultural factors, eg gender, ethnicity, faith

·         responsibilities, eg carer, lone parent.

The type of opportunities depends on whether origins or destinations are being considered:

·         Origin accessibility considers the opportunities available to an individual or a business. The opportunity term is therefore usually based on the land uses at alternative destinations.

·         Destination accessibility considers the catchments for a destination. The opportunity term is therefore usually based on the land uses and type of person or traveller at alternative origins.

Each section of the population has specific needs and desires to be involved in activities. These activities are represented as types of opportunities and defined in terms of the land use supply and the location and timing of a range of local services and facilities, which would allow any individual to satisfy their desire to participate in the activity under consideration. Typical activities include:

·         employment, education and training – employment locations, job centres, childcare facilities, nurseries, schools, colleges, universities, training centres

·         health and social – GP surgeries, health centres, hospitals, dentists, social security offices, drop-in and day care, centres, youth services, citizens’ advice bureaux, legal services, etc

·         shopping and leisure – shops/shopping centres, cinemas, theatres, sports centres, outdoor activity opportunities, centres for religious activity, pubs, clubs, post offices, financial services, etc.

There are many possible combinations of person types and land uses for both origin and destination (OD) accessibility. It is clearly not feasible to look at all such accessibility issues since the large number of combinations of people groups and trip purposes would not lead to a clear understanding of the accessibility issues. This emphasises the importance of weaving policy aims through behaviourally robust indicators to make the approach useful and understandable in practice.