What happened to the mall?

A recent article in Newsweek magazine poses the question: is the mall dead? The article notes that last year was the first year in half a century where a new indoor mall did not open somewhere in the country. Another recent article notes the high retail vacancy rate in regional malls. Others write that fast-growing “lifestyle centers” – open-air developments that contain some mix of shopping, office space, entertainment, outdoor parks, recreational facilities and housing – are replacing regional and local malls as the new shopping destination of choice.

However, the Newsweek article lays some of the blame for traditional malls’ decline on anti-consumption and pro-environment and fair labor sentiments held by the public. They report that 40% of First Globals prefer to purchase items that are “socially conscious” – ie, environmentally safe and produced through fair labor – and that traditional malls have little to offer that fits this description.

What do you think? Is the rise in the anti-consumption and pro-environment attitudes detailed by Newsweek responsible for the waning fortunes of shopping malls, or are factors like the growth of lifestyle centers and Internet shopping more responsible? Does the economic uncertainty of consumers mean that all shopping centers (and not just malls) are likely to close or have economic difficulties of their own? With the holiday season fast approaching, where do you plan to do most of your shopping – in a mall, or elsewhere?

Save the Earth

While First Globals are the most likely of any generation to describe themselves as environmentalists, they are also the least likely of any generation to recycle. Slightly more than half (53.9%) of First Globals consider themselves environmentalists, compared to 44.5% of those 30-49, 51.9% of those 50-64, and 49.0% of those over 65. Yet when asked how often they recycle, 57.3% of First Globals recycle “always” or “most of the time”, compared to 63.6% of those 30-49, 67.3% of those 50-64, and 72.1% of those over 65.

Why would First Globals be the most likely to call themselves environmentalists while simultaneously being the least likely to recycle? Is “environmentalist” merely a label that some First Globals (and others) adapt because it is politically correct? Or are First Globals not yet settled enough in their home lives and living situations to recycle on a consistent basis? Do you think First Globals will recycle more as they get older, or are they content to label themselves as environmentalists without doing things like recycling?

You are what you eat

For some people, what they choose to eat is linked to a greater environmental philosophy. For other people, food is just food, or the cost of eating with the environment in mind is prohibitively high. There is some indication that First Globals are no different than the rest of the population when it comes to their views on this issue. When asked whether they cared if their milk was hormone-free, 48.3% of First Globals either said yes or yes, but they will drink conventional milk occasionally. More than half (52.4%) of those 30-49, 50% of those 50-64, and 39.2% of those over 65 also felt this way.

We often assume that young people are more environmentally-minded. So why, then, is this an issue that seems to have little correlation with age? Or is the assumption that young people are more environmental incorrect?

Edited to add:
You can find some additional information and perspectives on the hormone-free milk debate here, here , and here. And according to this article from the Los Angeles Times, hormone-free milk can cost up to $1.50 more per half gallon than conventional milk.