Research Article
Library Usage Study, the How and
What: A Survey of Space Usage at a Mid-Sized Research Library
Aaron F. Nichols
Library Associate Professor,
Access and Media Services Librarian
David W. Howe Memorial
Library
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont, United States of America
Email: aaron.nichols@uvm.edu
Paul P. Philbin
Library Associate Professor
Emeritus
David W. Howe Memorial
Library
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont, United States of America
Email: paul.philbin@uvm.edu
Received: 9 Feb. 2022 Accepted: 10 Oct. 2022
2022 Nichols and Philbin. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes,
and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or
similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30103
Abstract
Objective –
The research was conducted to understand better how and what spaces are used in
a mid-size academic library. Also, the authors were interested in their users'
spatial likes and dislikes and why they gravitated to or avoided specific
spaces or floors. The authors also found an opportunity to examine recent
renovations that added a connector bridge to a first-year student dorm and the
subsequent increase in foot traffic to evaluate its success in meeting users'
needs for varied and productive study spaces across the building.
Methods –
The study used a survey to gauge user satisfaction with the library's space and
environment for research, study, and collaborative work. The authors
hand-distributed a survey with five multiple-choice and three open-response questions
to users over three days (Monday-Wednesday) between 10 am - 4 pm, the busiest
days and times in a typical week. The collected surveys were sorted and coded
in an Excel spreadsheet and uploaded and analyzed in JMP Pro.
Results –
The
298 completed responses came from undergraduate students (n=281) who visited
the first floor, identified as a collaborative study space (n=144). Respondents
showed that they visit the library daily (58%, n=173) and weekly (34%, n=104).
Most of the survey participants (98%, n=293) indicated that they pursued
academic work in quiet spaces they occupied (75%, n=224). Interestingly
enough, the noisiest and quietest floors are the areas most avoided, the
first floor-collaborative, noisiest space (54%, n=161) and the third floor-designated
as quiet space (18%, n=55). The final survey question invited the respondents
to "sound off," with 135 responding; 107 (79%) of them opined on
improvements to existing study spaces within the library.
Conclusion –
This research demonstrated that students value the library as a place to study
but are critical of excessive noise and overcrowding in the designated
collaborative study areas. Academic libraries should consider balance when
designing library study spaces. Librarians and space designers should strive to
strike an appropriate balance between seating quality and quantity, acceptable
noise levels in designated collaborative and quiet study spaces, and the
impacts of environmental factors such as printers, food services, exhibits, art
displays, restrooms, and walkways through library study spaces within the
library.
Introduction
The University
Library provides information, services, and support to the university’s 12,327
students, with about half living on campus. Undergraduates make up 10,700 of
the student body, and graduate programs bring in 1,627 graduate students. The
Medical Library, which is not a part of this research study, serves a small and
robust medical school and research centre. The university is a public land
grant university located in the Northeastern United States. The
vast majority of the students attend full-time and are under 25 years
old. The library building also houses non-library entities such as the
instructional support services, a writing centre, classroom technology
services, student accessibility services, and a coffee and snack bar with
seating.
The four-floor
building is used heavily throughout the academic year, with peak daily gate
counts exceeding 9,000 during the 2018 and 2019 academic years. The library
uses the Traf-Sys People Counting Systems to count entries and exits. When the
pandemic reduced building capacity, we upgraded to their SafeCount system to
monitor live occupancy.
Problem Statement
Since 2016,
circulation staff conducts an annual density count during the first or second
week in November to determine where library users congregate. Six years' worth
of data leads us to this study to determine who, what, and why individuals use
library spaces. In the interim, the university built a new residence hall for
first-year students adjacent to the library with a connecting bridge and
renovated space in the library. The addition and renovation created a second
entrance and exit to the library and relocated a service point from the lower
level. The renovations included a more spacious Center for Multimedia
Development and a reconfigured gallery for multi-cultural art. The reconfigured
spaces altered traffic flow and increased seating capacity on the first floor.
Like many
multi-level academic libraries, the first floor of the library hosts a
collaborative social learning environment including a blend of group seating
and soft chairs, printers, computing stations, three public service points, one
group study room, and a coffee and snack bar. When the study was conducted, the
library was open seven days each week during the academic year with the library
opening at 8 am and closing at 12 am on most weekdays. Total seating on the
first floor was 325 and head-count data revealed that seating was often full or
overflowing during peak day-time hours, with 352 counted. The second floor is a
designated quiet study floor with 358 total seats including large multiple seat
desks, soft seating, and individual study carrels. Also included on the second
floor are six sound-proof group study rooms, a large silent study room, book
and journal stacks, current periodicals, and computer workstations. Head-count
data reveal that peak usage occurs during day-time hours, with 258 filled seats
for a peak count. The third floor is designated for quiet study and is nearly
silent with little foot traffic. The third floor contains 403 total seats, book
stacks throughout the centre of the floor, one group study room, and a suite of
administrative offices. Seating consists of a few large multi-seat tables,
individual study carrels, and is heavily dominated by simple single-seat desks,
which are placed side-by-side along the perimeter of the floor. Head-count data
reveal more seating than demand, with a peak head-count of 124 seats filled
during peak operating hours. Wi-Fi is excellent throughout the building.
Since the
construction of the connector bridge and the subsequent increase in foot
traffic, no formal evaluation of the library space has been conducted. While we
have population density studies that tell us the number of users distributed
throughout the various areas in the building, we had no qualitative data from
our users. Previous LibQual studies provide excellent general information about
the library. Still, they do not give enough detail
to pinpoint the aspects our users like and dislike about the spaces in the
building. Anecdotes from librarians and staff painted a dismal picture of the
first floor's overcrowded, chaotic, and boisterous environment. Opinions from
librarians and staff were firmly in favour of creating a strict noise policy to
facilitate a quieter and less crowded first floor, but we needed to hear
directly from the students who use the spaces throughout the building to
determine if they share the same assessment of the library spaces as our
librarians and staff.
To determine new
space configurations and policies that work for our users, we needed to hear
what they see as good and bad aspects of the library’s study environment. We
decided to conduct a qualitative study with several guiding research questions:
1)
Which spaces do users avoid? Why?
2)
Which spaces are users drawn to? Why?
3)
What activities do users engage in their chosen space?
4)
Do these spaces work well for library users? What can
be improved?
Literature Review
Over the past
three decades, the academic library has evolved from the traditional library, a
mausoleum of knowledge and tranquil study, to the technology-enhanced and
highly collaborative learning commons model. Many academic libraries have
provided library space to non-library entities (Lux et al., 2016). They have emphasized
the creation of a technology-rich environment and social learning spaces
(Bostick & Irwin, 2014). Throughout the early 2000’s, academic libraries
redesigned their spaces to incorporate technology, group study spaces, areas
for socializing and informal study, and eating (Freeman, 2005; Jamieson, 2006).
These trends in
social study spaces and non-library services relocating to the library are not
universally accepted. For example, James (2013) documented a conflict that
emerged when faculty who were displeased with the learning commons established
at East Carolina University voiced their concerns about the future of the
library. Gayton (2008) argued that library users value the traditional communal
academic library model and that the developing social library model threatens
the communal spirit and harms the experience. With these significant changes in
academic libraries, we have seen many opportunities for research and debate.
Research and
user feedback studies demonstrated that library redesign efforts were viewed
positively by library users (Jamieson, 2006) and that libraries have
experienced increased use of physical spaces following a redesign (Shill &
Tonner, 2004). Spatial preferences and the attributes that determine users’
spatial choices are important factors in determining the overall quality of
library study spaces. Cha and Kim (2015) discovered that attributes such as
abundance of space, noise level, crowding, comfortable furnishing, and
cleanliness were primary factors in users’ spatial choices. Lux et al. (2016)
found that library users overwhelmingly use library spaces for study and that
individual study spaces are very much in demand. Similarly, Applegate (2009)
found that the library is primarily used as a study space and suggested a blend
of study environments to accommodate a wide range of student needs. Noise
levels play a factor in the quality of library spaces. Pierard and Baca (2019)
found that a moderate noise level is ideal for collaborative study areas and
Stemmer and Strawser (2019) observed that students highly value quiet study
spaces. Research regarding user preferences and their views on the quality of
library spaces provides valuable insights for successful remodeling and spatial
design efforts. This study adds to the current body of research by examining
user activities, preferences, and dislikes for spatial choice and study
environment.
The
groundbreaking ethnographic study by Foster and Gibbons (2007) at the
University of Rochester Library inspired many ethnographic studies in academic
and public libraries across the United States. The Ethnographic Research in
Illinois Academic Libraries project involved five Illinois academic libraries.
It used interviews, photo journals, and mapping diaries to better understand
students’ work behaviours in the libraries and applied those findings to
library design initiatives (Asher et al., 2010). Pierard and Lee (2011) used
ethnographic methods such as photographic observation, photo diaries, and
flipcharts in conjunction with a traditional user survey to learn how library
spaces were being used and what users considered to be an ideal library space.
The researchers used their findings to change public spaces while staying
within a modest budget. Bedwell and Banks (2013) made important discoveries in
how the library environment impacted student behaviour and study patterns when
they employed students from a Sociology and Social Anthropology class to
observe how students use space in the Dalhousie University Library. These
studies have all been instrumental in understanding what users are doing in
library spaces and how they use them.
Long-range
multiyear studies such as those conducted by Gerke and Teeter (2017) and Harrop
and Turpin (2013) effectively employed mixed methods to measure user
interactions in their physical library spaces. Lux et al. (2016) combined an
exit survey with observation and noted that focus groups might have added more
depth to their study. Hillman et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive mixed
methods study involving librarians, students, and sociology faculty to conduct
seating sweeps to map patron activity, conduct student-led focus groups, and
implement a survey based on the findings of the seating sweeps and focus
groups. At the University of Iowa, Thomas et al. (2015) paired an online survey
with observational headcounts to assess the purpose and demographics of their
learning commons use. At Penn State, Lynn (2011) conducted a needs assessment
in advance of a building renovation using an online survey tool and student and
faculty focus groups.
Not all studies
need to be labour intensive or complex to give quality data. Short and simple
studies have yielded excellent data for many academic libraries. Bailin (2011)
conducted short interviews with students to better understand their space
needs, how the library was meeting those needs, and to evaluate the success of
the library remodel. Stemmer and Strawser (2019) implemented a survey to gauge
the needs and desires of students in advance of a library renovation project
and used the data to inform the remodeling process. Cha and Kim (2015) and
Gardner and Eng (2005) also had success collecting useful qualitative and
quantitative data on library space attributes users value and need with
paper-based surveys. Hedge et al. (2018) collected insightful data on patron
activities, elements of an ideal study space, and preferences for environmental
factors such as noise and lighting in the library, using an online survey
instrument. The effectiveness of these simple study methodologies coupled with
a lack of time and resources to plan and execute a more exhaustive study led us
to employ a simple survey to harvest user feedback.
Methods
During three
consecutive days for the week of October 7, 2019, a survey was conducted to
gather information about the current space usage of the library. The authors
designed an eight-item survey instrument based on the study's goals. It
consists of five multiple-choice questions and three open response questions.
The complete survey is found in the appendix. Institutional Review Board
exemption for the study was received in August 2019. Survey collection began on
Monday, October 7, 2019. It ended Wednesday, October 9, 2019. From 10 am to 4
pm during those days, the authors hand distributed the surveys, attempting to
distribute at least 50 surveys per pre-identified zone. We selected dates in
early October because it was roughly five weeks into the sixteen-week semester.
This is a period of time when library business is
steadily busy but not a period, like final exam or mid-term periods, in which
library use is unusually high. Time and resources did not allow for survey
distribution during evening and weekend hours, and we therefore selected the 10
am – 4 pm time period to distribute surveys because it
was the busiest time of day and would yield the most survey results.
On Monday,
October 7, 2019, the authors distributed at least 350 surveys to library users
on the first floor in seven identified zones. On Tuesday, October 8, 2019, 300
surveys were handed out on the second floor, covering six zones. Finally, on
Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 150 surveys were distributed on the third floor in
three zones. Some spaces were so quiet that the authors left surveys on tables
with printed instructions. Survey participants were instructed to deposit
completed surveys in locked ballot boxes placed strategically throughout the
library. Each survey was identified with a floor and zone designation in the
footer of the survey document. The completed surveys were sorted and coded in
an Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet data were uploaded to JMP Pro for
analysis.
Results
Demographic of Participants
Responses came
primarily from undergraduate students (n=281). Graduate students (n=12),
community users (n=3), faculty (n=1), and staff (n=1) were all underrepresented
in relation to their numbers across campus. However, data from past LibQual
studies as well as anecdotal evidence suggest that undergraduates are indeed
the dominant user group of the library.
Responses were
spread across all areas of the library. Library users from all three main
floors participated in the survey. Table 1 shows the floors with the most
respondents. Overall, we were pleased to see participants from a wide range of
floors and seating areas.
Table 1
Number of
Participants
|
Floor Surveyed |
Participants |
|
1 (collaborative) |
144 |
|
2 (quiet) |
74 |
|
3 (quiet) |
80 |
|
Total |
298 |
Visit Frequency
After
demographic data questions, the survey asked participants how frequently they
use the library area/space they are in. Participants tended to use the
area/space they occupied with regular frequency, with 58% (n=173) responding
that they visit the library area/space daily and 34% (n=104) responding that
they use the library area/space on a weekly basis. A small minority of
participants responded that they use the library area/space infrequently, with
only 15 participants responding that they visit the area/space monthly or less
than monthly, and six responded with “other.”
Visit frequency
was similar for participants across all three floors. Participants who
responded that they visit the area/space daily were proportionately represented
across the collaborative study first floor (58%), quiet study second floor
(55%), and quiet study third floor (60%). Weekly users saw a similar, equal
distribution across the first (34%), second (38%), and third (34%) floors.
Table 2 shows participant visit frequency broken down by the floor they were
surveyed on.
Table 2
Visit Frequency
|
Floor Surveyed |
Daily |
Weekly |
Monthly |
Less
than Monthly |
Other |
Questionnaire
Responses |
|
1 (collaborative) |
84 |
49 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
144 |
|
2 (quiet) |
41 |
28 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
74 |
|
3 (quiet) |
48 |
27 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
80 |
|
Total |
173
(58%) |
104
(34%) |
9 (3%) |
6 (2%) |
6
(2%) |
298 |
The high rate of
visit frequency demonstrates that the library attracts and retains a loyal
following and that participants tend to return to the spaces they use. While
these data alone do not point directly to a satisfied user base, they do
demonstrate that the library offers resources
and/or services sought by undergraduate students.
What Users Are Doing in the Library
One of the
driving research goals of this study is determining what library users are
doing while they spend time in the library. The survey presented a simple
multiple response questions “What are you doing in this space?” Participants
were given several response options, including an open response, from which
they were invited to select all responses that apply.
Most of the
participants (98%, n=293) responded that they were pursuing academic work while
in the library. Personal work is the next most popular activity with 37%
(n=109) of participants selecting this option. Surprisingly, almost a quarter
of all participants (23%, n=69) responded that they were socializing while in
the library. Leisure reading (7%, n=22) and the open response option (5%, n=16)
were the least frequently selected options.
The high number
of participants engaging in social activities makes more sense when looking at
the data broken down by floor. Participants surveyed on the first floor, which
encourages collaborative study and sees significant foot traffic, all but owned
the social activities with 34% (n=49) of first-floor participants responding
that they engage in social activities while in the library. Participants on the
second floor, which is a designated quiet floor, responded with a surprising
19% (n=14) indicating they indulged in social engagement. Only 7.5% (n=6) of
participants surveyed from the third floor claimed they engaged in social
activities while in the library.
Table 3
Participant
Activity
|
Floor Surveyed |
Academic
Work |
Personal
Work |
Social |
Leisure
Reading |
Other |
Questionnaire
Responses |
|
1 (collaborative) |
142 |
50 |
49 |
10 |
10 |
144 |
|
2 (quiet) |
71 |
29 |
14 |
3 |
2 |
74 |
|
3 (quiet) |
80 |
30 |
6 |
9 |
4 |
80 |
|
Total |
293 (98%) |
109 (37%) |
69
(23%) |
22 (7%) |
16
(5%) |
298 |
Why Users Choose the Space They Occupy
Our next
question asked participants why they chose to use the space they occupied. The
survey asked participants “Why do you use this space/area?” and allowed
participants to select multiple responses including an open-ended “other”
option.
Many
participants (75%, n=224) selected “quiet” as the reason for selecting the
space they occupied. Other popular selections included “furniture” (49%, n=146)
and “outlets” (42%, n=125), with “lighting” (27%, n=81), “Fewer noise
restrictions” (25%, n=76), “other” (21%, n=64), and “access to technology”
(20%, n=61) as less popular yet compelling and statistically significant
reasons.
Broken down by
floor, the distribution of responses is somewhat different. Participants
(n=144) on the collaborative and often noisy first floor selected “furniture”
(56%, n=81) most frequently and, quite surprisingly, they chose “quiet” (55%,
n=79) with almost the same frequency. All other reasons for using spaces on the
first floor were selected at similar, statistically significant frequencies:
“outlets” (35%, n=50), “fewer noise restrictions” (32%, n=46), “access to
technology” (30%, n=43), and “other” (29%, n=42).
Table 4
Why Participants
Choose the Space They Occupy
|
Floor Surveyed |
Quiet |
Furniture |
Outlets |
Lighting |
Fewer
Noise Restrictions |
Other |
Access
to Technology |
Questionnaire
Responses |
|
1 (collaborative) |
79 |
81 |
50 |
39 |
46 |
42 |
43 |
144 |
|
2 (quiet) |
69 |
37 |
44 |
24 |
14 |
9 |
11 |
74 |
|
3 (quiet) |
76 |
28 |
31 |
18 |
16 |
13 |
7 |
80 |
|
Total |
224
(75%) |
146
(49%) |
125
(42%) |
81 (27%) |
76 (25%) |
64
(21%) |
61 (20%) |
298 |
Participants on
the second floor (n=74), which is a designated quiet floor, selected “quiet”
(93%, n=69) with overwhelming frequency. “Outlets” (59%, n=44), “furniture”
(50%, n=37), and “lighting” (32%, n=24) were also strong attributes that
attracted participants to second-floor spaces. Not surprisingly, with the
second floor offering a small number of computer terminals without printers or
specialized technology, responses such as “fewer noise restrictions” (19%,
n=14), “access to technology” (15%, n=11), and “other” (12%, n=9) were not
significant factors for most second-floor participants.
Third-floor
participants (n=80) sought “quiet” (95%, n=76) above all else. “Outlets (39%,
n=31) and “furniture” (35%, n=28) were also important reasons participants chose
third-floor spaces. “Lighting” (n=18), “fewer noise restrictions” (n=16), and
“access to technology” (n=7) were not factors for most participants.
User Needs
Our results
showed that participants come to the library for a
variety of needs. Quiet study (84%, n=250), printing (66%, n=197), and
collaborative study (46%, n=136) were the needs most frequently selected by
participants. Standard technologies such as computers (19%, n=58) and scanning
(12%, n=35) were selected with modest frequency, while more specialized
technologies such as the 3D printer (2%, n=5) and microform scanners (1%, n=3)
were in exceptionally low demand. Participants cited other needs such as
additional electrical/USB outlets (2%, n=7) and more comfortable seating (2%,
n=5) in the open-ended comment section.
The first floor
of the library is the central printing hub for all of campus and, as we
expected, printing (72%, n=104) was the most frequently selected need by
first-floor participants. However, we were surprised to see that participants
surveyed on the collaborative and often noisy first floor selected quiet (70%,
n=101) with remarkably high frequency, even more so than collaborative study
(58%, n=83). One possible explanation is that the survey was taken at a time of
year when collaborative projects are not frequently worked on. It is also
possible that participants on the first floor think of quiet in relative terms,
as one participant remarked “It [the library] is
quieter than my dorm.” It is also possible that the first floor is quiet enough
for most students during certain times of the day and of the year. Other than
printing, participants saw modest interest in technological offerings such as
scanning (14%, n=20), computers (26%, n=37), 3D printing (2%, n=5), and
microform scanners (1%, n=3).
Participants on
the second floor overwhelmingly selected quiet (95%, n=70) as a need.
Collaborative study was selected at a moderately high rate (38%, n=28).
Printing (59%, n=44) dominated technological needs, while computers (21%, n=16)
and scanning (12%, n=9) were modestly selected. All other options were selected
infrequently.
All respondents
on the third floor selected quiet (99%, n=79) as a need. Like the first and
second floors, printing was selected with strong frequency (61%, n=49) by
third-floor participants. Collaborative study (31%, n=25) was the next most
frequently selected need. Scanning, computers, microform readers, and 3D
printing were selected with little frequency.
Table 5
Participant
Needs
|
Floor Surveyed |
Quiet |
Printing |
Collaborative
Study |
Computers |
Scanning |
Other |
Microform
Scanner |
3D
Printing |
Questionnaire
Responses |
|
1 |
101 |
104 |
83 |
37 |
20 |
17 |
2 |
4 |
144 |
|
2 |
70 |
44 |
28 |
16 |
9 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
74 |
|
3 |
79 |
49 |
25 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
80 |
|
Total |
250
(84%) |
197 (66%) |
136 (46%) |
58 (19%) |
35 (12%) |
29 (10%) |
3 (1%) |
5 (2%) |
298 |
The next
question, which was designed as a follow up to the multiple response Question
5, asked participants “Are we meeting those needs?” with an open-ended response
option. There was also room for participants to add commentary to their
response. Of the 298 total participants, 251 (84%) answered “yes,” the library
is meeting their needs. Only four (1.3%) participants responded with “no” and
43 (14%) neither responded yes nor no. Most of the comments centered around
improved study space needs (n=74) such as more or larger tables, more
collaborative study space, more seating, more outlets, comfortable seating,
better lighting, and complaints about crowding and noise. We saw complaints
(n=25) about printing, which is understandable given a rash of mechanical
failures we dealt with due to worn out machinery during the survey.
Areas Avoided
The
collaborative first floor is the most avoided floor with 54% (161 of 298) of
all participants identifying the first floor, or specific areas within the
first floor, as an area they avoid at some point. First-floor areas such as the
coffee and snack bar (n=11), front lobby (n=7), and reference computer area
(n=11) were pointed out as places avoided by participants. Surprisingly, 39.6%
(57 of 144) of participants surveyed from the first floor avoid the first floor
at some point. The most frequently cited reason participants avoid the first
floor is that the space is too loud (66%) and crowded (28%).
The quiet third
floor is the next most avoided space with 18% (n=55) of participants noting
that they avoid that floor. Most of those who avoid the third floor do so
because they find it is too quiet (78%, n=43) for their liking. Other reasons
participants avoid the third floor do not show up with much frequency and are
therefore statistically insignificant. All the participants who avoid the third
floor were either surveyed from the first floor (n=43) or the second floor
(n=12) and none of the participants who were surveyed on the third floor
avoided the third floor.
The second floor
is the least avoided area with only 9% (n=27) of participants claiming that
they avoid the area. Most of the survey takers who avoid the second floor were
surveyed from the first floor (n=19) and claimed that they avoid the floor
(n=12) because it is too quiet. Only one participant surveyed on the second
floor and seven surveyed from the third floor avoid the second floor.
Table 6
Areas Avoided
|
Floor Surveyed |
Avoid
Floor 1 (collaborative) |
Avoid
Floor 2 (quiet) |
Avoid
Floor 3 (quiet) |
Avoid Ground
Floor |
Questionnaire
Responses |
|
1 |
57 |
19 |
43 |
5 |
144 |
|
2 |
42 |
1 |
12 |
1 |
74 |
|
3 |
62 |
7 |
0 |
4 |
80 |
|
Total |
161
(54%) |
27
(9%) |
55
(18%) |
10
(3%) |
298 |
Sound Off
The final survey
question invited participants to “sound off” in an open-ended response about
anything they wish. Of the 135 responses, 107 (79%) opined on improvements that
can be made to existing study spaces within the library. Demands for more
spaces and furnishing types such as more tables (n=23), more soft seating
(n=10), more seating in general (n=14), more collaborative study space (n=5),
and more private study space (n=8) were made clear by participants.
Participants also asked for improvements to the quality of study spaces such as
better lighting and more natural light (n=12), more electrical outlets (n=16),
a more updated look (n=7), and better temperature regulation (n=5).
Participants did not mention many grievances about noise (n=6) or crowding
(n=9), and complaints regarding printing (n=7) seem to have been exhausted in
previous sections.
Discussion
The study sought
to determine why and how users are using study spaces in the library and
whether the spaces they are using are satisfying their needs.
Noise Level and Crowding on the Collaborative Study Floor
The first floor
is the largest open space in the library and serves as the only open study
space that encourages collaborative study without noise restrictions. Anecdotal
observations from librarians and staff that first-floor users are using the
first floor as a recreational area are largely untrue. Our study revealed that
nearly all of the first-floor participants were
engaged in academic work and that these users value both quiet and
collaborative study. Indeed, some of the first-floor participants did reveal
that they are there to socialize in addition to pursuing their studies, but
very few indicated that they were there strictly for socializing. While the
perception that first-floor users are primarily interested in socializing is
patently wrong, complaints from librarians that noise is an issue on the first
floor are strongly supported by the participants who were surveyed on the first
floor. Participants surveyed from all floors, including the collaborative and
noisy first floor, find the first floor too loud for their liking. Crowding was
another problem that was widely identified by first-floor participants and
indeed, many library staff from the first-floor service points have identified
crowding as a consistent problem in the first-floor lobby, walkway, and study
areas. Research by Stemmer and Strawser (2019) and Vondracek (2007) found
similar patterns at their libraries, with significant numbers of respondents
indicating that the learning commons were too loud, crowded, and distracting
for productive work.
The first floor
provides much-needed and wanted collaborative study
space for students. To improve the user experience, crowding and excessive
noise must be addressed. Research conducted by Pierard and Baca (2019) and
Mehta et al. (2012) suggests that a moderate ambient noise level, about 70 dB,
is ideal for collaborative learning spaces. With this in mind, we recommend
studying the noise levels on the first floor with a decibel meter to gain an
accurate assessment of when and where noise may be problematic.
We do not see a
single approach as being effective in mitigating excessive noise on the first
floor. Indeed, research has demonstrated that a multiple approach strategy is
most effective in mitigating excessive noise levels. These approaches include
expectation-setting, self-monitoring through noise monitoring displays such as
NoiseSign, gentle and consistent staff intervention, the development of
positive marketing campaigns to help users find appropriate study spaces in and
outside of the library, and addressing building and seating design problems
that enable excessive noise and crowding (Pierard & Baca, 2019).
Creating
barriers or physical delineations between study areas and the hectic and highly
social lobby and thruway areas would be a good first step. Many of the desks on
the first floor are crammed together and the computer pods in the reference
section frequently see groups of students on top of one another. Freeing up
space on the first floor to create higher quality collaborative study areas
with reasonable space between group tables might also be helpful in reducing
overcrowding. Pierard and Baca (2019) noted that such rearrangement of
furnishings and redesign can be successful in solving noise problems with
design rather than policy.
Participants on
the designated quiet study second and third floors were satisfied with the
level of noise on their respective floors. There were only a few complaints
about noise occasionally becoming an issue on these floors. While crowding was
not frequently cited as a major issue for these floors, some users did claim
that the second floor is often too crowded. Observations from circulation staff
and population density data bolster the crowding claim, especially in the
middle and end of each semester. In related studies, Applegate (2009) found
that students involved in quiet individual study prefer not to sit next to one
another, that a seat or more apart is ideal for focused study. Stemmer and
Strawser (2019) found that students desire more room and more quiet study
space. The user experience might be enhanced by creating more space for users
to spread out and have a bit more self-space. While adding more seats might be
tempting, with the limited available seating on the quiet floors in the library,
we should focus more on the quality of the individual study spaces by creating
larger, more spacious work areas with more room between adjacent tables, desks,
and carrels. And while users tend to self-enforce noise on these quiet floors,
signage on the large multi-seat tables might be helpful to remind groups of
students not to engage in conversation or intense whispering.
Technology
Printing is the
technology most used by survey participants. This is certainly backed up by
data from our Pharos print management system and local printer leasing vendor,
which indicate that printers in the library are some of the most used in the
entire state. While some academic libraries have made efforts to reduce
printing and printing waste due to environmental and cost-recovery concerns
(Ashmore & Morris, 2002; Calloway & Callahan, 2003), the university
library has made strides to make printing more accessible to students by
dropping printing fees from ten cents per page to five cents per page and
offering free printing days at the end of each semester. Although students and
faculty are actively engaged in environmental campaigns such as banning the
sale of bottled water on campus and divestment from fossil fuel industries, the
demand for paper printing has not attracted much attention. In fact, the
student government has asked that printing become more accessible by reducing
or eliminating printing fees. A campus study targeted at students and faculty’s
printing habits and needs could be useful in understanding the importance that
this service plays for the campus community and whether financial and
environmental waste are concerns.
Computers and
scanning equipment saw modest rates of reported use. In fact, logins for
library-provided computers have seen a significant decline over the past three
years in the library. Yet the computer pod seating in the reference area is
frequently overcrowded during peak library hours throughout the academic year.
This is substantiated, albeit anecdotally, by reports from public services staff
as well as commentary from this survey that computer seating is frequently
occupied by patrons who are not making use of the library-provided computers.
The declining
need for library-supplied computers coupled with a need for more seating should
prompt a redesign of the collaborative first-floor computing area. Eliminating
collaborative study floor computers and replacing the densely packed pod-type
desks with large tables with generous egress between them will enhance the user
experience by reducing overcrowding. It could reduce noise levels as groups
will not feel compelled to talk over one another. The existing library-supplied
computers on the first and second floors that are intended for printing and
quick look-up access should remain as their need is still strong enough to
justify their location in those spaces.
Using Data for Reopening During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Social
distancing guidelines and a strict building capacity limit dictated by the
State made reopening the library a challenge. In-person socializing and group
study were not feasible under the social distancing guidelines in place between
August 2020 and May 2021. A building capacity limit of 225, where we regularly
see over 800 at peak hours, required removing desks, chairs, and soft seating.
Data collected and analyzed from this study were used to inform the
functionality of the "new normal" library for reopening at the start
of Fall 2020 and through Spring 2021 semesters.
Mask wearing and
social distancing were mandated by the university and state officials. But it
was up to us to reopen the library and implement policies designed to encourage
social distancing and face coverings, discourage group work, and foster an
environment for research and study that would benefit most students on campus.
This study's data revealed that many participants do not like the excessive
noise and social atmosphere on the collaborative first floor. In response to
this, we implemented a quiet study policy for the entire library. The
designated "quiet" second and third floors remained silent study
areas. The previously noisy and collaborative first floor was transformed into
a mostly quiet work area where users could talk or participate in online
courses at a low conversational level. Based on our students' observational
data and verbal gratitude, we can see that this new pandemic-specific policy
was well-received. Items identified in the study as having low value to users,
such as computers and small tables, were removed from the library to give users
access to things participants think have a higher value such as larger desk
spaces and printers.
Using Data for Post-Pandemic (Vaccination) Reopening
With the removal
of state-mandated social distancing guidelines and building capacity
restrictions, campus administration planned for a fully in-person campus
experience for the Fall 2021 semester. We were instructed by campus officials
to open the building to all visitors free of nearly all of
the previous year’s COVID-19 restrictions, with mask wearing being the
exception. Despite an overwhelming vaccination rate among students, faculty,
and staff, campus administration mandated a strict mask-wearing policy for all
occupants in campus buildings, including the library. With the removal of the
past year’s restrictions, students were welcome to engage in collaborative
in-person study and enjoy eating in the library building once again.
Data from the
study revealed that many students come to the library as a destination for
collaborative study. At the same time, data revealed that overcrowding and
noise were major problems for most students. To accommodate the overwhelming
desire for less crowding and less noise, in addition to the need for
collaborative study, we made efforts to improve the quality of the study spaces
by sacrificing the number of seats in the building. For the Fall 2021 semester,
we reduced seating in the building from 1288 seats to 670 seats. Large tables
on the first floor that once had eight seats crammed into a table now have four
seats but offer a much larger table surface to work on and a less crowded study
experience.
Changes to our
technological offerings also helped to reduce crowding issues in the building.
Many of our printers and scanners were in the middle of prime collaborative
study space. Printers are noisy machines that often see significant queues
build up and require frequent maintenance. To address the noise and crowding around
printing and scanning activities, we moved all printers and scanners to the
already noisy coffee and snack bar. The result, coupled with the reduction of
first-floor computers from 120 to 50, allowed us to make room for more open
desk space on the collaborative first floor. Data gathered from diminishing
login numbers coupled with a new university mandate that all students purchase
a laptop tell us that the reduction in machines will not be missed by our
students.
At this point,
it is too early to draw conclusions on the impact of these changes. We have
observed significantly less crowding in the building. Groups of students are
studying on the collaborative first floor and there appears to be more
productive study and less frivolous socializing. This is especially true in the
areas of the first floor that offer large multi-seat tables. We have observed
some of the computer pods on the first floor tend to be more social and
over-crowded than the large group tables. While the reduction in seating and relocation
of printers may have helped to reduce noise and crowding, there are other
factors at play. The campus-wide mask mandate and fear of COVID-19 might have
kept some students away from the building. The university also has a large and
academically proficient first-year class and a shift of focus on academic
achievement may also be a factor in the changes we have observed. Another, more
tangible factor is the closing of the coffee and snack bar. In pre-pandemic
times, the coffee and snack bar could attract over 45,000 visitors per
semester. We need at least one complete academic year post-pandemic, without
restrictions, to determine how students use spaces optimally. Keeping the food
and coffee service closed might also contribute to less congestion, noise, and
socializing and contribute to a more productive study and academic experience.
Limitations and Future Research
This study
provided useful qualitative information, but some limitations should be noted.
While the results are similar to other studies, as
indicated in the “Discussion,” the findings of this study are limited to one
institution. A more exhaustive mixed methods approach that employs focus
groups, ethnographic, exit, and observational methods could have enhanced our
findings and given us an opportunity to gain more insights from participants.
We also recognize that the survey was distributed during day-time hours, and
therefore the data may not apply equally to evening use. Finally, this study
only surveyed students who were in the library and did not represent those
students who do not come to the library. Discovering why students choose not to
use library spaces could be just as useful as gaining insights from regular
users.
Conclusion
This space study
proved to be extremely useful for an event we did not anticipate when we first
developed the research questions and implemented the research. The data from
this study provided sound guidance for the reopening of the library and its
study spaces during the pandemic. We know that students want variety and
balance in library study spaces and that our past efforts spun our
collaborative spaces out of balance. When the building was renovated in 2017,
we prioritized fitting as many seats in the building as possible, especially on
the first floor. We realize now that, in emphasizing
seating quantity and fostering an “anything goes” approach, we created a
library space that lacked balance between productive work and social
interactions. Academic libraries should take balance into consideration
when designing library study spaces. Librarians and space designers should
strive to strike an appropriate balance between seating quality and quantity,
acceptable noise levels in designated collaborative and quiet study spaces, and
the impacts of environmental factors such as printers, food services, exhibit
and art displays, restrooms, and walkways on library study spaces.
The pandemic was
a helpful inconvenience. Without it, we might never have experienced reduced
occupancy and seating levels, reduced or changed
hours, and the closing of the coffee and snack bar. We have a nagging suspicion
that the loss of 45,000 visitors attracted by the coffee and snack bar might
contribute to less congestion and noise. A future survey to follow up on any
new seating arrangements and where we might deploy technologies is undoubtedly
in our future. We are currently working with a vendor to purchase portable
indoor Zonez soundproof privacy booths in our libraries, informing a follow-up
study. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred the rise of remote communications
technologies such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom that expand the way students,
faculty, and staff work in the post-COVID era. Academic libraries should be
prepared to accommodate and facilitate the use of these technologies so that
library users can engage in remote classes, meetings, and other activities like
tele-health appointments with privacy and environmental impact considerations
in mind.
Author Contributions
Aaron Nichols: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing Paul Philbin: Conceptualization,
Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and
editing
References
Applegate, R. (2009). The library is for studying: Student preferences
for study space. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4),
341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.04.004
Asher, A., Duke, L., & Green, D. (2010). The ERIAL project:
Ethnographic research in Illinois academic libraries. Academic Commons, 8.
https://academiccommons.org/may-2010/the-erial-project-ethnographic-research-in-illinois-academic-libraries/
Ashmore, B., & Morris, S. E. (2002). From scraps to reams: A survey
of printing services in academic libraries. College & Research
Libraries, 63(4), 342–352.
Bailin, K. (2011). Changes in academic library space: A case study at
The University of New South Wales. Australian Academic & Research
Libraries, 42(4), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2011.10722245
Bedwell, L., & Banks, C. (2013). Seeing through the eyes of
students: Participant observation in an academic library. Partnership: The
Canadian Journal of Library Information Practice and Research, 8(1),
1–17. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v8i1.2502
Bostick, S., & Irwin, B. (2014, June 2–5). Library design in the
age of technology planning for a changing environment [Plenary paper]. 35th
International Association of Scientific and Technological University
Libraries (IATUL) Conference, Helsinki, Finland. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/plenaries/3
Calloway, M., & Callahan, D. (2003). Paper use and recycling in
academic libraries. E-JASL: The Electronic Journal of Academic and Special
Librarianship, 4(2–3), 1–8. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ejasljournal/27/
Cha, S. H., & Kim, T. W. (2015). What matters for students’ use of
physical library space? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3),
274–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.014
Foster,
N. F., & Gibbons, S. (Eds.). (2007). Studying
students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. Association of College and Research Libraries. https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/Foster-Gibbons_cmpd.pdf
Freeman, G. T. (2005). The library as a place: Changes in learning
patterns, collections, technology, and use. In Library as place: Rethinking
roles, rethinking space (pp. 1–9).
Council on Library and Information Resources. https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub129/freeman/
Gardner, S., & Eng, S. (2005). What students want: Generation Y and
the changing function of the academic library. portal: Libraries and
the Academy, 5(3), 405–420.
Gayton, J. T. (2008). Academic libraries: “Social” or “communal”? The
nature and future of academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship,
34(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.11.011
Gerke, J., & Teeter, K. (2017). Counting heads: Building space
assessment into your library assessment plan. In D. M. Mueller (Ed.), At the
helm: Leading transformation — Conference proceedings (pp. 152–159). Association
of College and Research Libraries. https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2017/CountingHeads.pdf
Harrop, D., & Turpin, B. (2013). A study exploring learners’
informal learning space behaviors, attitudes, and preferences. New Review of
Academic Librarianship, 19(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2013.740961
Hegde, A. L., Boucher, T. M., &
Lavelle, A.
D. (2018). How do you work? Understanding user needs
for responsive study space design. College & Research Libraries, 79(7),
895–915. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.7.895
Hillman, C., Blackburn, K., Shamp, K., & Nunez, C. (2017).
User-focused, user-led: Space assessment to transform a small academic library.
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 12(4), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.18438/B83X00
James, R. M. (2013). Culture war in the collaborative learning commons. Journal
of Learning Spaces, 2(1). http://libjournal.uncg.edu/jls/article/view/502
Jamieson, H. (2006). Food for thought: Learning Services’ approach to
food and drink policies in the Learning and Resource Centre. SCONUL Focus,
39, 13–14. https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/SCONUL%20Focus%2039.pdf
Lux, V., Snyder, R. J., & Boff, C. (2016). Why users come to the
library: A case study of library and non-library units. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 42(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.01.004
Lynn, V. A. (2011). A knowledge commons needs assessment: Building for
the future at Penn State. College and Research Libraries News, 72(8),
464–467. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.72.8.8618
Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative
cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1086/665048
Pierard, C., & Baca, O. (2019). Finding the sonic sweet spot:
Implementing a noise management program in a library learning commons. Journal of Access Services, 16(4),
125–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2019.1649985
Pierard, C., & Lee,
N. (2011). Studying space: Improving space planning with user studies. Journal
of Access Services, 8(4), 190–207.
Shill, H. B., & Tonner, S. (2004). Does the building still matter?
Usage patterns in new, expanded, and renovated libraries, 1995–2002. College
and Research Libraries, 65(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.2.123
Stemmer, J., & Strawser, M. G. (2019). Silence in a noisy world:
Using student feedback to enhance library silent study space. Evidence Based
Library and Information Practice, 14(3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29581
Thomas, B., Van Horne, S., Jacobson, W., & Anson, M. (2015). The
design and assessment of the Learning Commons at the University of Iowa. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 804–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.005
Vondracek, R. (2007). Comfort and convenience? Why students choose
alternatives to the library. Libraries and the Academy, 7(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2007.0039
Appendix
Sample Survey Instrument
Qualitative Survey of Space Usage in the Library
1. What is your status at the University? (Circle one
choice only).
(a) Undergraduate (b) graduate (c) faculty (d) staff
(e) community user
2. How often do you use this area/space? (Circle one
choice only).
(a) Daily (b) weekly (c) monthly (d) less than monthly
(e) other:
3. What are you doing in this space? (Circle all that
apply).
(a) Academic work/study (b) social (c) leisure reading
(d) personal work
(e) Other:
4. Why do you use this space/area? (Circle all that
apply).
(a) Furniture (b) quiet (c) fewer noise restrictions
(d) access to technology
(e) lighting (f) access to outlets (g) other:
5. When using the library what are your needs? (Circle
all that apply).
(a) Quiet atmosphere (b) collaborative atmosphere (c)
computers (d) 3-D printing (e) microfilm readers (f) scanning technology (g)
printing (h) other:
6. Are we meeting those needs?
7. Which space(s) in the library do you avoid?
Explain:
8. Sound Off (what else is on your mind in terms of
library space usage).
Date: October 2019/Atrium1