The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 274–279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

What Matters for Students' Use of Physical Library Space?

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Physical space in an academic library is increasingly important to fully support students' diverse needs for learn-
Received 30 January 2015 ing spaces. However, inefficient space design and planning give rise to crowded and underutilized spaces in a li-
Accepted 24 March 2015 brary, thereby probably lowering students' learning outcomes and wasting costly space. Understanding students'
Available online 10 April 2015
use of space can facilitate effective design and planning, which in turn will result in more efficient use of space. As
students' spatial choices (i.e., the act of decision-making of an individual or group among two or more space al-
Keywords:
Academic library
ternatives for a certain activity) account for much of the space use in a library, this study explored the factors that
Learning space influence their choice of space in an academic library using a paper-based survey (n = 252) at the central aca-
Library as place demic library, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. The five most important space attributes
Space planning were “Amount of space,” “Noise level,” “Crowdedness,” “Comfort of furnishing” and “Cleanliness.” The spatial
Space use choice patterns also differed according to different user and activity profiles.
Library design © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION mainly due to a lack of knowledge about how students choose and use
library space. Unlike an office building, the use of library space, especial-
Although the function of an academic library as an information re- ly learning space, is usually determined by students' spatial choices as
trieval space, such as searching databases, checking out books and read- they are not provided with their own work stations in libraries. Thus,
ing printed materials, has become weaker (Gayton, 2008), use of understanding students' spatial choices is important in designing and
physical space in a library remains important as student learning planning efficient library spaces. Increasing the efficiency of library
space: many students spend long periods in the library to conduct spaces is important because academic libraries are usually situated in
their own studies and research (Applegate, 2009; Bryant, Matthews, & the center of campus, and each square meter, particularly on the cam-
Walton, 2009; Suarez, 2007). Over the past few decades, many research puses of urban or older universities, is very costly (Little, 2013, 2014).
studies have in this sense paid attention to the importance of physical The aim of this study was to discover which attributes influence stu-
library space with the concept of “library as place” (Applegate, 2009; dents' spatial choice in academic libraries using a direct-rating survey.
Bennett et al., 2005; Holder & Lange, 2014). In addition, libraries often The study first defined 18 space attributes that represent space quality
serve as an access and linkage between buildings on campus and potentially influence spatial choice in an academic library. A
(Cunningham & Tabur, 2012), which also increases students' use of li- paper-based survey was then conducted at the central academic library
brary space. Thus, use of physical library space continues to grow “as at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands. The study
place.” Therefore, to accommodate the growing demand for learning compared the importance of space attributes in different contexts in
space, newly constructed and renovated academic libraries are intro- terms of user and activity profiles because users may have different
ducing more non-traditional facilities such as classrooms, cafes and preferences according to their characteristics (e.g., gender, age) and ac-
group study spaces (Shill & Tonner, 2003; Stewart, 2011). tivities (e.g., independent work, group work) (DeClercq & Cranz, 2014;
Such changes in the physical space, however, mean that academic li- Webb, Schaller, & Hunley, 2008). The findings provide fundamental
braries frequently have both crowded and underutilized spaces. Stu- knowledge about students' spatial choices, and thus can contribute to
dents are sometimes unable to find a space when needed (DeClercq & the design and planning of more efficient academic library spaces.
Cranz, 2014), and even if they find a seat in such a crowded space,
they are likely to work less productively than they would in an un- LITERATURE REVIEW
crowded space. Conversely, underutilized space is costly in several re-
spects, e.g., in wasted construction, energy and maintenance costs. A library should be designed to reflect the different needs of diverse
Such a mismatch between the demand and supply of library space is activities (e.g., independent study, group work), thus creating better
student learning spaces (Gayton, 2008; Bennett, 2007; Holder &
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 34424695. Lange, 2014). Indeed, design associated with space quality (or a combi-
E-mail addresses: sc734@cam.ac.uk (S.H. Cha), taewkim@cityu.edu.hk (T.W. Kim). nation of space qualities) affects occupants' satisfaction and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.014
0099-1333/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 S.H. Cha, T.W. Kim / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 274–279 275

productivity, as demonstrated by many post-occupancy evaluation a group to study or work on a project,” “Use of public computer,” and
(POE) studies (Frontczak et al., 2012; Kim & de Dear, 2012; Lee & “Reading a book or article.” These reflect the most frequent activities
Guerin, 2009). The design subsequently affects students' frequency of li- in libraries, except for “Walking through” (i.e., transition to other build-
brary use. Indeed, Shill and Tonner (2004) found that improving the ing) (Crumpton & Crowe, 2009; DeClercq & Cranz, 2014).
quality of space through renovation increased the use of space through- The second section asked about the perceived importance of each
out a library. Studies have adopted a variety of methods to better under- space attribute when choosing a space. The attributes representing
stand space use in libraries, such as mental mapping, overt observation, space quality were determined based on post-occupancy evaluations
unobtrusive observation, visitor tracking, interviews and questionnaires (POEs). Among others, the Center for the Built Environment (CBE) at
(May, 2011; Webb et al., 2008). Specific spaces in libraries have been se- the University of California Berkeley has conducted over 600 POEs and
lected in some studies, such as study spaces (Applegate, 2009) and com- found relationships between occupant satisfaction and 15 space attri-
puter spaces (Weessies, 2011). butes related to indoor environmental quality and building characteris-
Some interesting relationships have been found between space use tics (Frontczak et al., 2012; Kim & de Dear, 2012). Therefore, the study
and space quality. For example, DeClercq and Cranz (2014) found that used basically the same space attributes as those used by the CBE. How-
students' favorite spaces were located close to windows, similar to the ever, as the POEs at the CBE mainly concentrated on occupant satisfac-
findings of many other studies (Foster & Gibbons, 2007; Mls, 2000; tion, the study modified the space attributes so that they were more
Organ & Jantti, 1997). Weessies (2011) found that proximity, such as related to spatial choice. The study added the following five space attri-
the distance from an entrance, was strongly correlated with workstation butes: “Crowdedness,” “Air movement,” “Distance from an entrance,”
choice. Holder and Lange (2014) observed that many students preferred “Accessibility to facilities (e.g., printer, restroom, and cafeteria)” and
to find a quiet space in the library. These studies demonstrate that in an “Window view” (i.e., access to an outside view through a window
academic library, there are many spaces with different space qualities from where you sit) based on space use studies in libraries
that are related to space design and planning in terms of their function, (Applegate, 2009; Crumpton & Crowe, 2009; Webb et al., 2008;
aesthetic appearance, furniture, geometry, window view, etc. Although Weessies, 2011). The item “General maintenance of the building” was
such studies provide useful information on library space use, little is deleted because it is irrelevant to decision making based on space. Ac-
known about which attributes of the physical space determine students' cordingly, 18 candidate space attributes were generated for the survey,
spatial choices in an academic library in a comprehensive manner. As as shown Table 1. The study asked participants how important they
space use in an academic library is mainly related to students' spatial considered each space attribute to be when making their current spatial
choices for their activities, understanding their spatial choice patterns re- choice, measured on a 7-point Likert scale (i.e., perceived importance:
garding the quality of this space is essential for effective design and plan- 1 = not considered at all, 7 = strongly considered).
ning. However, rather than directly examining students' preferences and The study analyzed the collected data by recording the scores for
spatial choices, previous studies have concentrated on their level of satis- each space attribute, and these scores were then compared according
faction with their chosen spaces (Hassanain & Mudhei, 2006; to the different characteristics of the users and their activity profiles
Montgomery, 2014; Riley, Kokkarinen, & Pitt, 2010) using t-tests.

METHOD RESULTS

The study collected the data on students' preferences for spatial at- Table 2 shows the respondents' profiles with regard to their personal
tributes using a paper-based survey (Supplementary S1) (n = 252) and activity information. Most of the respondents were less than
of students using the central academic library, Eindhoven University 25 years old and about 80% were male and European. Most of them car-
of Technology (TU/e), the Netherlands. This is a research university ried a personal laptop and visited the library frequently for studying or
focusing on science and engineering with about 9000 students working on their assignments and projects. More than half of the re-
(i.e., undergraduate and graduate) and 3000 staff members. After a spondents came to the library with a friend(s), to work together or
pilot study (n = 30) to check the clarity of the questionnaire, the just to meet them. In addition, 83.3% of the respondents considered
study conducted the main survey between 13:00 and 16:00 over a their activity in the library important, with a mean score above five.
two-week period during Spring 2013. The library at TU/e was chosen Only 2% of respondents stayed in the library for less than an hour and
for the survey because it is a central place with diverse spaces to support 55.5% stayed for over 3 h, which indicates that space use in the library
students' different needs and activities and it was renovated in 2012. is important for student activities on the university campus.
The library is located in the Metaforum building, which serves as a cam-
pus hub with diverse facilities (e.g., dining hall, classrooms, and student Table 1
service center) and is connected to other main buildings by footbridges. A list of space attributes representing the quality of physical space.
The library comprises three floors with around 950 seats (e.g., soft Category Space attribute
chairs, lounges, seats for over 50 computers, individual study rooms
Space layout Accessibility to facilities
and group study rooms). On the first and ground floors, conversation
Amount of space
is allowed for group work, but many students also use these floors for Crowdedness
independent study. Only the underground floor is reserved as a quiet Distance from an entrance
study space. WiFi Internet is accessible and strong throughout the Ease of interaction with friends
library, and power outlets are available close to all seats except for Visual privacy
Window view
some soft chairs and lounges. The use of the library greatly differs Space furnishing Adjustability of furniture
between weekdays and weekends: the library is rarely used at week- Comfort of furnishing
ends, perhaps because TU/e does not provide student housing on cam- Space ambience and cleanliness Aesthetic appearance
pus, but many of the library spaces are crowded on weekdays. Cleanliness
Thermal comfort Temperature
The survey comprised two sections. The first section asked students
Air movement
about their personal characteristics (e.g., gender, age, and frequency of Air quality Air quality
visit to library) and for what purpose they were currently using the li- Lighting Amount of light
brary (e.g., activities, whether with friends or not, expected length of Visual comfort (glare, reflection, contrast)
stay). Example questions used to ask about students' activities include Acoustic quality Noise level
Sound privacy
“Studying or working on one's own assignments or project,” “Meeting
276 S.H. Cha, T.W. Kim / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 274–279

Table 2
Personal and activity profile in the spaces students were using

Personal information
Age b25 years 25–30 years N30 years
73.8% 25.4% 0.8%
Gender Male Female
77.8% 22.2%
Ethnicity European East Asian Other
80.6% 16.7% 2.8%
Grade Undergraduate Graduate
56.3% 43.7%
Visit frequency First visit Daily 2–3 times a week Weekly 1–2 times a month
4.4% 29.4% 49.2% 7.8% 9.2%
Current stay information
Weekday/Weekend Weekday Weekend
64.7% 35.3%
Reading books or articles 34.9%
Working alone 66.7%
Meeting a group 23.0%
Using a public computer 7.9%
With own laptop 70.6%
Here with friends Yes No
53.6% 46.4%
Activity importance 1 (Not important) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Very important)
0% 3.2% 5.2% 8.3% 22.2% 37.7% 23.4%
Expected stay duration b1 h 1–3 h 3–5 h 5–7 h N7 h
2% 42.5% 35.6% 15.5% 4.4%

Fig. 1 indicates the overall perceived importance of the library space more concerned about thermal comfort and being overheard by others.
attributes regardless of user and activity profile. The following attributes Age had the greatest influence: differences were found in the impor-
had mean scores above five and were considered the most important, tance ratings of most of the space attributes according to age group. Re-
starting with the highest: “Amount of space,” “Noise level,” “Crowded- spondents aged over 24 placed more importance on physical distance,
ness,” “Comfort of furnishing” and “Cleanliness.” Overall, students such as “Accessibility to facilities” and “Distance from an entrance,”
tended to select a space that was big enough, uncrowded, had comfort- and on all of the indoor air quality attributes, than those aged under
able furniture and was clean and quiet. POE studies (Frontczak et al., 24. Although East Asians were slightly more concerned than
2012; Kim & de Dear, 2012) have proven that indoor environmental Europeans about some of the space attributes, such as “Window
quality and aesthetic appearance are closely related to user satisfaction. view,” “Adjustability of furniture” and “Aesthetic appearance,” there
However, for students' spatial choices, some attributes of the indoor air were no significant differences across space attributes according to eth-
quality, such as “Temperature,” “Air movement,” and “Air quality”, and nicity. Graduate students value “Window view”, “Air quality”, and “Air
“Aesthetic appearance” were not important determinants. Space attri- movement” more than undergraduate students. In addition, “Aes-
butes such as “Accessibility to facilities,” “Distance from an entrance” thetic appearance” and “Amount of light” are regarded as slightly
and “Window view” were relatively less important in students' spatial more important for graduate students. Interestingly, students who
choices. occasionally visited the library put more importance on a clean
When selecting a space in a library, students' choices may vary with space with good design close to the entrance than students who vis-
different user and activity profiles. Tables 3 and 4 present the results of ited frequently.
the t-tests conducted between subgroups classified by respectively user Table 4 presents the differences in the perceived importance of the
and activity profiles. As shown in Table 3, a gender difference is found in space attributes according to students' activity profiles. Students who
“Temperature,” “Air movement” and “Sound privacy.” Females were had a meeting and were with friends clearly regarded two space

6
5.69 5.59
5.40 5.32
5 5.15
4.81
4.31 4.21
4 3.83 3.90
3.58 3.74 3.71 3.71
3.47 3. 48 3.38 3.47
3

2
Mean
1

Fig. 1. Overall perceived importance of space attributes for library space use. Bold horizontal lines represent the median values and dots indicate the mean values.
 S.H. Cha, T.W. Kim / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 274–279 277

Table 3
Comparison of perceived importance of space attributes according to users' personal characteristics

Space attribute Male Female 18-24 N24 European East Asian Under graduate Graduate Occasional visit Frequent visit
(n = 196) (n = 56) (n = 186) (n = 66) (n = 203) (n = 43) (n = 142) (n = 110) (n = 54) (n = 198)

Accessibility to facilities 3.83 3.84 3.59 4.50⁎⁎⁎ 3.74 4.14 3.63 4.08 4.09 3.76
Amount of space 5.66 5.80 5.73 5.59 5.76 5.31 5.82 5.54 5.91 5.64
Crowdedness 5.45 5.25 5.32 5.64 5.40 5.43 5.37 5.45 5.63 5.34
Distance from an entrance 3.40 3.73 3.23 4.17⁎⁎⁎ 3.42 3.69 3.36 3.62 4.02 3.32⁎
Ease of interaction 4.24 4.55 4.26 4.44 4.27 4.55 4.23 4.41 4.07 4.37
Visual privacy 3.96 3.71 3.79 4.23 3.84 4.12 3.74 4.12 4.00 3.88
Window view 3.42 3.70 3.25 4.14⁎⁎⁎ 3.34 4.12⁎ 3.20 3.85⁎⁎ 3.70 3.42
Adjustability of furniture 3.56 3.64 3.39 4.12⁎⁎ 3.43 4.14⁎ 3.43 3.77 3.37 3.64
Comfort of furnishing 5.31 5.38 5.22 5.61 5.31 5.29 5.36 5.27 5.59 5.25
Aesthetic appearance 3.33 3.54 3.15 4.03⁎⁎⁎ 3.22 4.12⁎ 3.17 3.65⁎ 3.85 3.25⁎
Cleanliness 5.12 5.25 5.05 5.42 5.08 5.43 5.09 5.22 5.48 5.06⁎
Temperature 3.54 4.45⁎⁎ 3.47 4.48⁎⁎⁎ 3.64 4.12 3.60 3.92 4.00 3.67
Air movement 3.32 3.98⁎ 3.23 4.14⁎⁎⁎ 3.38 3.83 3.19 3.83⁎⁎ 3.39 3.49
Air quality 3.61 4.09 3.39 4.64⁎⁎⁎ 3.62 4.05 3.42 4.09⁎⁎ 3.89 3.67
Amount of light 4.79 4.89 4.60 5.41⁎⁎⁎ 4.73 5.00 4.61 5.07⁎ 5.06 4.74
Visual comfort 4.17 4.32 3.98 4.85⁎⁎⁎ 4.16 4.52 4.13 4.31 4.39 4.16
Noise level 5.62 5.46 5.39 6.15⁎⁎ 5.51 5.86 5.44 5.77 5.59 5.59
Sound privacy 3.56 4.23⁎ 3.54 4.18⁎ 3.58 4.19 3.51 3.96 3.63 3.73
⁎ Indicates p-values = 0.05.
⁎⁎ Indicates p-values = 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ Indicates p-values = 0.001.

attributes, “Ease of interaction” and “Sound privacy,” as important fac- As many students carry their own laptops (over 70% of students in
tors in their choice of space. Students visiting the library at the weekend this study) and participate in several activities at the same time, they re-
scored every space attribute higher than those who visited on week- quire enough space for such activities. In addition, the need for comfort-
days, particularly much higher in “Accessibility to facilities,” “Window able furniture seems natural because many students use the library for
view” and “Aesthetic appearance.” This finding indicates that students individual work (66.7% in this study) and spend a long time there at
who spent a long time in the library and used it for important activities each visit (55.5% expected to stay longer than 3 h). Cunningham and
(i.e., over five points) took almost all of the space attributes into more Tabur (2012) in a similar vein emphasized that students require large,
consideration when choosing a space. comfortable tables to accommodate their activities. Furthermore, stu-
dents value a personal zone (Hall, 1966) that is strongly associated
DISCUSSION with whether a space is crowded. “Noise level” was considered the sec-
ond most important attribute for spatial choice, in line with many other
This study investigated which space attributes students consider to be studies that have found that students prefer to sit in a quiet space
important when choosing a space in a library. A survey was conducted to (DeClercq & Cranz, 2014; Holder & Lange, 2014; Organ & Jantti, 1997).
elicit students' ratings of each space attribute. The results showed that “Cleanliness” was also rated as important, although POE studies have
“Amount of space,” “Noise level,” “Crowdedness,” “Comfort of furnishing” not found it to be a main factor affecting occupant satisfaction with
and “Cleanliness,” in order of importance, were the main determinants of workspaces (Frontczak et al., 2012; Kim & de Dear, 2012).
students' spatial choices. This finding implies that spaces with better qual- Interestingly, “Window view” was rated as one of the least impor-
ities in these attributes will generally attract more students. tant attributes (3.48), in contrast to some previous studies: Mls

Table 4
Comparison of perceived importance of space attributes according to users' activity profiles

Space attribute Non-meeting Meeting Weekdays Weekends With friends Without friends b3 h N3 h Not important Important
(n = 194) (n = 58) (n = 163) (n = 89) (n = 135) (n = 117) (n = 112) (n = 140) (n = 42) (n = 210)

Accessibility to facilities 3.90 3.60 3.56 4.33⁎⁎⁎ 3.89 3.76 3.51 4.09⁎ 3.12 3.97⁎⁎
Amount of space 5.75 5.50 5.64 5.79 5.71 5.68 5.51 5.84⁎ 5.31 5.77
Crowdedness 5.46 5.22 5.40 5.40 5.30 5.52 5.29 5.50 4.86 5.51⁎⁎
Distance from an entrance 3.49 3.40 3.28 3.82⁎ 3.47 3.47 3.15 3.73⁎⁎ 2.71 3.62⁎⁎
Ease of interaction 4.06 5.16⁎⁎⁎ 4.17 4.56 5.12 3.38⁎⁎⁎ 4.36 4.27 3.74 4.42⁎
Visual privacy 3.98 3.64 3.84 4.02 3.70 4.14 3.80 3.99 3.00 4.09⁎⁎⁎
Window view 3.48 3.50 3.18 4.04⁎⁎⁎ 3.53 3.43 3.33 3.61 3.31 3.52
Adjustability of furniture 3.65 3.34 3.42 3.88⁎ 3.51 3.66 3.29 3.81⁎ 3.07 3.68⁎
Comfort of furnishing 5.42 5.00 5.18 5.58⁎ 5.32 5.32 5.12 5.49 4.81 5.42⁎
Aesthetic appearance 3.46 3.10 3.07 3.93⁎⁎⁎ 3.32 3.44 3.13 3.57⁎ 3.02 3.45
Cleanliness 5.16 5.09 5.07 5.28 5.14 5.15 5.10 5.19 4.64 5.25⁎⁎
Temperature 3.79 3.57 3.61 3.97 3.73 3.74 3.60 3.85 2.95 3.90⁎⁎
Air movement 3.51 3.33 3.41 3.57 3.44 3.50 3.27 3.63 3.07 3.55
Air quality 3.80 3.43 3.56 4.00 3.65 3.79 3.50 3.89 3.17 3.82⁎
Amount of light 4.88 4.59 4.63 5.15⁎ 4.76 4.87 4.75 4.86 4.33 4.90⁎
Visual comfort 4.28 3.95 4.12 4.37 4.11 4.32 3.94 4.42⁎ 3.71 4.30⁎
Noise level 5.70 5.22 5.50 5.75 5.56 5.62 5.43 5.71 4.81 5.74⁎⁎
Sound privacy 3.54 4.29⁎⁎ 3.56 3.99 4.05 3.32⁎⁎ 3.49 3.89 2.74 3.90⁎⁎⁎
⁎ Indicates p-values = 0.05.
⁎⁎ Indicates p-values = 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ Indicates p-values = 0.001.
278 S.H. Cha, T.W. Kim / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 274–279

(2000) mentioned that an outdoor view attracted students and some university, the students are mainly science and engineering students
studies found that students preferred seats close to a window and therefore the activities taking place at the library could differ from
(DeClercq & Cranz, 2014; Organ & Jantti, 1997). This result suggests those in normal universities. In this regard, it would be worth seeing
that the attractiveness of a space near to a window is more likely to be the difference of space preference in different disciplines. Finally, the
related to natural light rather than a “Window view.” Indeed, students' students who participated in the survey were unbalanced in terms of
preference for natural light has been proven in many studies (Foster & gender and ethnicity. To deal with such limitations, more studies on
Gibbons, 2007; Gfeller, Butterfield-Nagy, & Grignon, 2011; Twait, spatial choice in other libraries are needed. In addition, research efforts
2009). In this regard, the “Amount of light,” albeit not specifically natu- are needed to connect the findings with design practice as this study
ral light, was highly rated (4.80) in this study. Some studies (DeClercq & does not provide direct and specific design solutions. With such further
Cranz, 2014; Foster & Gibbons, 2007; Twait, 2009) have found that the developments, this study will help architects to achieve effective space
ambience of a space influenced students' preferences. However, in this planning and design by means of user-driven design.
study, “Aesthetic appearance,” although not exactly the same as ambi-
ence, had the lowest rating (3.38) of the 18 space attributes. This may
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
imply that although students might prefer a space with good aesthetic
appearance, it is not directly connected to their spatial choice, or ambi-
The work described in this paper was partially supported by a grant
ence is more related to scholarly atmosphere formed by a mix of stu-
dents and spaces not only by “Aesthetic appearance”. from City University of Hong Kong (Project No. 7004183).
In addition, it should be stated that although the importance of space
attributes was scored and ranked in terms of students' spatial choice, APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
and therefore some of the space attributes were considered relatively
unimportant compared to others, they could become a determinant. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.
For example, if the “Aesthetic appearance” of the space was too poor doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.014.
to stay, then this attribute could be a determinant because clearly the
poor condition of an attribute would make the occupant more likely
to consider it. The authors speculate that the importance of space attri- REFERENCES
butes could also reflect the order of consideration: when a more impor-
Applegate, R. (2009). The library is for studying: Student preferences for study space. The
tant space attribute is satisfactory, then a less important space attribute Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 341–346.
may subsequently be considered. Bennett, S. (2007). First questions for designing higher education learning spaces 1. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(1), 14–26.
The study also found that the importance of space attributes varied
Bennett, S., Demas, S., Freeman, G. T., Frischer, B., Oliver, K. B., & Peterson, C. A. (2005). Li-
according to the different user and activity profiles. In particular, age brary as place: Rethinking roles, rethinking space. Council on Library and Information
(i.e., 18–24, N24) and self-assessed activity importance led to big differ- Resources (Washington, D.C.).
ences in perceived importance for almost all of the space attributes. Sev- Bryant, J., Matthews, G., & Walton, G. (2009). Academic libraries and social and learning
space. A case study of Loughborough University Library, UK. Journal of Librarianship
eral studies (Applegate, 2009; Bennett, 2007; Holder & Lange, 2014) and Information Science, 41(1), 7–18.
have stated that library space should meet a broad spectrum of stu- Crumpton, M., & Crowe, K. (2009). Using evidence for library space planning. Proceedings
dents' needs in terms of their different preferences and activities. There- of the 2008 Library Assessment Conference: Building effective, sustainable, practical as-
sessment (pp. 51–64). Seattle.
fore, these findings on the varying importance of space attributes in Cunningham, H. V., & Tabur, S. (2012). Learning space attributes: Reflections on academic
different contexts provide architects with fundamental information on library design and its use. Journal of Learning Space, 1(2).
user-driven design in terms of space use, as they take account of diverse DeClercq, C. P., & Cranz, G. (2014). Moving beyond seating-centered learning environ-
ments: Opportunities and challenges identified in a POE of a campus library. The
space use patterns according to different users and activities. For exam- Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(6), 574–584.
ple, the results indicate that female students value thermal comfort Foster, N., & Gibbons, S. (2007). Studying students: The undergraduate research project at
more than male students do, thus if some space in a library is intended the University of Rochester. Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries.
Frontczak, M., Schiavon, S., Goins, J., Arens, E., Zhang, H., & Wargocki, P. (2012). Quantita-
to accommodate more female than male students, architects should
tive relationships between occupant satisfaction and satisfaction aspects of indoor
focus more on thermal comfort in designing and planning that space environmental quality and building design. Indoor Air, 22(2), 119–131.
than other spaces in the library. Gayton, J. T. (2008). Academic libraries: “Social” or “communal?” The nature and future of
academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 60–66.
Gfeller, G., Butterfield-Nagy, D., & Grignon, H. (2011). Imagine: A student-centered li-
CONCLUSION brary. College & Research Libraries News, 72(5), 270–273.
Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday and Company, Garden City.
It would be ideal if, in practice, sufficient comfortable space could be Hassanain, M. a., & Mudhei, A. a. (2006). Post-occupancy evaluation of academic and re-
search library facilities. Structural Survey, 24(3), 230–239.
provided in libraries for all students and their activities regardless of the Holder, S., & Lange, J. (2014). Looking and listening: A mixed-methods study of space
size of the space and its cost. However, providing such an environment use and user satisfaction. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(3),
is often impossible or very inefficient, especially in libraries on urban 4–27.
Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2012). Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and
campuses where each additional square meter of space costs a great overall workspace satisfaction. Building and Environment, 49, 33–40.
deal. Therefore, efficient space design and planning needs to consider Lee, Y. S., & Guerin, D. a. (2009). Indoor environmental quality related to occupant satis-
students' library space use, which is mainly determined by their spatial faction and performance in LEED-certified buildings. Indoor and Built Environment,
18(4), 293–300.
choices. This study provides architects with fundamental knowledge Little, G. (2013). The space race. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(4), 351–353.
about which space attributes have the greatest influence on students' Little, G. (2014). Space: The final frontier. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(6),
spatial choices. The five most important space attributes for spatial 632–633.
May, F. (2011). Methods for studying the use of public spaces in libraries. Canadian
choice are determined as “Amount of space,” “Noise level,” “Crowded- Journal of Information and Library Science, 35(4), 354–366.
ness,” “Comfort of furnishing” and “Cleanliness.” In addition, the impor- Mls, M. W. L. (2000). Seating patterns and improvements in a small college library. College
tance of space attributes varies with different user and activity profiles. and Undergraduate Libraries, 7(2), 83–94.
Montgomery, S. E. (2014). Library space assessment: User learning behaviors in the li-
Some limitations of the study may affect the generalization of the
brary. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 70–75.
findings. First, the survey was conducted at a library and thus the specif- Organ, M., & Jantti, M. (1997). Academic library seating: A survey of usage, with implica-
ic characteristics of the library might have influenced the importance of tions for space utilisation. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 28, 205–216.
each space attribute. For example, in a library with poor thermal sys- Riley, M., Kokkarinen, N., & Pitt, M. (2010). Assessing post occupancy evaluation in higher
education facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 8(3), 202–213.
tems in a cold country, students may give priority to thermal comfort Shill, H. B., & Tonner, S. (2003). Creating a better place: Physical improvements in aca-
over other space attributes. In addition, as the school is a technological demic libraries. College and Research Libraries, 64(6), 431–466.
 S.H. Cha, T.W. Kim / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015) 274–279 279

Shill, H., & Tonner, S. (2004). Does the building still matter? Usage patterns in new, ex- Twait, M. (2009). If they build it, they will come. A student-designed library. College &
panded, and renovated libraries, 1995–2002. College and Research Libraries, 65(2), Research Libraries News, 70(1), 21–24.
123–150. Webb, K. M., Schaller, M. A., & Hunley, S. A. (2008). Measuring library space use and pref-
Suarez, D. (2007). What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic erences: Charting a path toward increased engagement. Portal: Libraries and the
methods to observe student behavior. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Academy, 8(4), 407–422.
Librarianship, 8(3) (Retrieved from http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/ Weessies, K. W. (2011). A locational analysis of academic library computer use. Reference
v08n03/suarez_d01.html). Services Review, 39(3), 465–481.
Stewart, C. (2011). Building measurements: Assessing success of the library's changing
physical space. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(6), 539–541.