Housing Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, 000–000, 2003 Dispelling the Myth that Preference makes Practice in Residential Location and Transport Behaviour HELEN JARVIS Department of Geography, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK [Paper first received 22 April 2002; in final form 8 July 2002] ABSTRACT This paper critically examines the widely held belief that social costs of growth, such as congestion, pollution and sprawl, can be stemmed by compact, mixed-use, design solutions. It is argued instead that when considering the future of cities, we have to actively engage in debates concerning the future of work and changes in the structure and composition of households. Discussion draws on household level research conducted in three West Coast US cities (Portland, Seattle and San Francisco) representing a hierarchy of size, status and growth management. Detailed analysis of 60 two-wage household ‘biographies’ highlights the way decision making (and ultimately compromise) shapes human-environment interaction. Evidence is presented which shows high levels of dissonance between stated preference for compact, mixed use neighbour- hoods and non-localised lived relations between different daily activities and communi- ties. The results of this inter-city comparative study are discussed with reference to US (and UK) environmental policies currently favouring planning-led behavioural change. KEY WORDS: liveability, residential preference, household structure, sustainable development Introduction The ‘ecological footprint’ suggests that our homes, energy use, consumption and circulation both directly and indirectly translate into quantities of land, resources and wastes (Rees, 1992). It is currently estimated that the average North American requires about 5 hectares to support food, housing, transportation and other consumer ‘needs’. As Beatley & Manning (1997) point out, this lifestyle based on increasing consumption is supported in large part by appropriating the resources of less powerful, less developed regions of the world (p. 8). Human settlement inevitably disturbs the ‘natural’ environment: and it is not simply settlement, but movement, associated with settlement, which imposes a heavy ‘footprint’. It is no surprise then that in advanced economies, where per capita land use and energy consumption is steep and rising faster than population, land-use planning, particularly the integration of residential, commercial and transport development, features high on the environment agenda. While popu- lation growth in Kansas City, in the US, increased by less than 30 per cent between 1960 and 1990, land devoted to housing and development rose by 110 0267-3037 Print/1466-1810 On-line/03/040000-00  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1466181032000087490