Assessing Users’ Demand for Library Space: Insights from an Architecture School
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to conduct a post-occupancy evaluation to assess users’ feedback on the use of the architecture school library at Thammasat University, Thailand. The proposed study also has a specific objective: to explore users’ demand for library space in terms of academic library attributes. A case study of the library in the Faculty of Architecture and Planning was conducted at Thammasat University. Multiple data collection methods were used, including document analysis, a questionnaire survey, a workshop, and focus group interviews, to gather information on users’ demand for the library space. The findings confirm the relevance of the variables in the conceptual model from previous studies, which encompass three key attributes regarding users’ demand for library space: physical, social, and digital spaces. Functional obsolescence and changing learning approaches are revealed as dominant influential factors affecting users’ demand for library space. The connection between post-occupancy evaluation (POE) and pre-design evaluation (PDE) in the redevelopment of a real estate project is considered as a shift from performance measurement to performance management, assisting in establishing agreed-upon performance goals for the operation. This study’s findings, derived from a single case study, do affect affect generalisability. However, the study provides insights into academic library design and renovation by emphasising the alignment of library spaces with user needs for improved service effectiveness and user satisfaction. The research introduces an integration of POE and PDE, proposing a methodological framework for future library space redevelopment that could contribute to the broader discussion on library design and user experience.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All material is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, unless otherwise stated. As such, authors are free to share, copy, and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The authors must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. The authors may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. The authors may not use the material for commercial purposes. If the authors remix, transform, or build upon the material, they may not distribute the modified material, unless permission is obtained from JARS. Final, accepted versions of the paper may be posted on third party repositories, provided appropriate acknowledgement to the original source is clearly noted.
References
AboWardah, E. S., Khalil, M. O., & Ramadan, M. G. (2019). Sense of place attachment to the architectural academic library: Toward an interactive learning environment. International Journal of Design Education,14(2), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v14i02/43-69
Altizer, Z., Canar, W. J., Redemske, D., Fullam, F., & Lamont, M. (2019). Utilization of a standardized post-occupancy evaluation to assess the guiding principles of a major academic medical center. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 12(3), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586718820712
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Beckers, R. (2016). A learning space Odyssey [Doctoral thesis, University of Twente]. University of Twente Research Information. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/a-learning-space-odyssey.
Bengtson, J. B. (2006). Managing digital resources in libraries. Library Review, 55(7), 451-452. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610682182
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brown, M. (2005). Learning spaces. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp.12.1-12.22). Educause. https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101l.pdf
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
Choy, F. C., & Goh, S. N. (2016). A framework for planning academic library spaces. Library Management, 37(1/2), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2016-0001
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Davoodi, A., Johansson, P., & Aries, M. (2021). The implementation of visual comfort evaluation in the evidence-based design process using lighting simulation. Applied Sciences, 11(11). 4982. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11114982
Deng, Q., Allard, B., Lo, P., Chiu, D. K. W., See-To, E. W. K., & Bao, A. Z. R. (2019). The role of the library café as a learning space: A comparative analysis of three universities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 823–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617742469
Elf, M., Lindahl, G., & Anåker, A. (2019). A study of relationships between content in documents from health service operational plans and documents from the planning of new healthcare environments. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 12(3), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586718796643
Elsayed, M., Pelsmakers, S., Pistore, L., Castaño-Rosa, R., & Romagnoni, P. (2023). Post-occupancy evaluation in residential buildings: A systematic literature review of current practices in the EU. Building and Environment, 236, 110307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110307
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
Grover, R., & Grover, C. (2015). Obsolescence – a cause for concern?. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 33(3), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPIF-02-2015-0016
Hacihasanoglu, I., & Hacihasanoglu, O. (2001). Assessment for accessibility in housing settlements. Building and Environment, 36(5), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1323(00)00041-x
Hadjri, K., & Crozier, C. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities, 27(1–2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770910923063
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345
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
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report. The New Media Consortium. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2011/2/hr2011-pdf.pdf
Joseph, A., Quan, X., Keller, A. B., Taylor, E., Nanda, U., & Hua, Y. (2014). Building a knowledge base for evidence-based healthcare facility design through a post-occupancy evaluation toolkit. Intelligent Buildings International, 6(3), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.903163
Kernohan, D., Gray, J., Daish, J., & Joiner, D. (1992). User participation in building design and management: a generic approach to building evaluation. Butterworth Architecture.
Kim, J. A. (2016). Dimensions of user perception of academic library as place. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5), 509-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.013
Lau, K. S. N., Lo, P., Chiu, D. K. W., Ho, K. K. W., Jiang, T., Zhou, Q., Percy, P., & Allard, B. (2020). Library and learning experiences turned mobile: A comparative study between LIS and non-LIS students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(2), 102103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102103
Lawson, K. (2004). Libraries in the USA as traditional and virtual “third places”. New Library World, 105(1198/1199),125–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800410526758
Leighton, P. D., & Weber, D. C. (1999). Planning Academic and research library buildings. American Library Association.
Li, P., Froese, T. M., & Brager, G. (2018). Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Building and Environment, 133(2018), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.024
Lippincott, J. K. (2006). Linking the information commons to learning. in D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 7.1-7.18). Educause. https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102g.pdf
Lotfy, M. W., Kamel, S., Hassan, D. K., & Ezzeldin, M. (2022). Academic libraries as informal learning spaces in architectural educational environment. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 13(6), 101781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2022.101781
Manninen, J., Burman, A., Koivunen, A., Kuittinen, E., Luukannel, S., & Passi, S. (2007). Environments that support learning: Introduction to the learning environments approach. Finnish National Board of Education.
Marmot, A. (2012). Matching post-16 estate investment to educational outcomes. Alexi Marmot Associates.
McLaughlin, P., & Faulkner, J. (2012). Flexible spaces: What students expect from university facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 10(2), 140–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725961211218776
Mehtonen, P. (2016). The library as a multidimensional space in the digital age. Information Research: an international electronic journal, 21(1). https://informationr.net/ir/21-1/memo/memo6.html
Miller, W. (2013). Libraries and student success. Library Issues, 34(2), 1-4.
Mushi, P. A. K. (2004). From didactic to facilitative approach: Establishing conditions for effective teaching and learning in higher education. Dar es Salaam University Press.
O’Conner, R. A. (2012). Seeing DuPont within Sewanee and student life: The Library Planning Task Force. Final Report for the Jessie Ball DuPont Library (pp. 57–76). University of the South.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Marlowe and Company.
Oseland, N. (2021). Beyond the workplace zoo: Humanising the office. Routledge.
Ornstein, S. W., Ono, R., Lopes, P. A., França, A. J. G. L., Kawakita, C. Y., Machado, M. D., Robles, L. V. L., Tamashiro, S. H., & Fernandes, P. R. (2009). Performance evaluation of a psychiatric facility in São Paulo, Brasil. Facilities, 27(3/4), 152-167. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770910933161
Pereira L. M., & Ornstein, S. W. (2023). A systematic literature review on healthcare facility evaluation methods. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 16(3), 338-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231166094
Pourebrahimi, M., Eghbali, S. R., & Ana, P. P. (2020). Identifying building obsolescence: Towards increasing buildings’ service life. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 38(5), 635-652. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-08-2019-0068
Preiser, W. F. E., White, E., & Rabinowitz, H. (2015). Post-occupancy Evaluation. Routledge.
Radcliffe, D. (2008). A pedagogy-space-technology (PST) framework for designing and evaluating learning places. In D. Radcliffe, H. Wilson, D. Powell, & B. Tibbetts (Eds.), Learning spaces in higher education: Positive outcomes by design (pp. 11–16). The University of Queensland. https://www.academia.edu/10392806/Learning_Spaces_in_Higher_Education_Positive_Outcomes_by_Design
Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. Sage.
Riratanaphong, C. (2022). Designing an accommodation strategy: Findings from an architecture school. Facilities,40(7/8), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-02-2021-0015
Rothe, P., Lindholm, A.-L., Hyvonen, A., & Nenonen, S. (2012). Work environment preferences – does age make a difference?. Facilities, 30(1/2), 78-95. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771211194284
Sanders, M. (2005). Paperbacks and a percolator: Fostering a sense of community in the academic library. Mississippi Libraries, 69(1), 5-6. https://mla42.wildapricot.org/Resources/Documents/MLarchive/ML2005Spring.pdf
Scott-Webber, L. (2004). In sync: Environmental behavior research and the design of learning spaces. Society for College and University Planning.
Sens, T. (2010, August 11). 12 major trends in library design. Building Design+Construction. https://www.bdcnetwork.com/12-major-trends-library-design.
Shill, H. B., & Tonner, S. (2004). Does the building still matter? usage patterns in new, expanded, and renovated libraries, 1995–2002. College & Research Libraries, 65(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.2.123
Shin, S., Jeong, S., Lee, J., Hong, S. W., & Jung, S. (2017). Pre-occupancy evaluation based on user behavior prediction in 3D virtual simulation. Automation in Construction, 74, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.11.005
Stewart, C. (2011). Building measurements: Assessing success of the library’s changing physical space. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(6), 539–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2011.09.002
Tantiwanit, K. (2019). A Report on building development project. Faculty of Architecture and Planning, Thammasat University.
Van Aalst, H. F., & Kok, J. J. M. (2004). Het nieuwe leren [The new learning]. JSW: Jeugd in School en Wereld, 89(4), 11-15. https://www.webkwestie.nl/het%20nieuwe%20leren%20online/nieuwe_leren-groen_kennisnet_108928%20(2).pdf
Van Meel, J., & Størdal, K. B. (2017). Briefing for buildings – A practical guide for clients and their design teams. ICOP.
Valtonen, T., Leppänen, U., Hyypiä, M., Kokko, A., Manninen, J., Vartiainen, H., Sointu, E., & Hirsto, L. (2021). Learning environments preferred by university students: A shift toward informal and flexible learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 24(3), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09339-6
Vischer, J. C. (1985). The adaptation and control model of user needs: A new direction for housing research. Journal of environmental psychology, 5(3), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80028-1Get rights and content
Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment. Building research & information, 36(3), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801936472
Vischer, J. C. (2009). Applying knowledge on building performance: From evidence to intelligence. Intelligent Buildings International, 1(4), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.3763/inbi.2009.SI02
Wauters, H., Vermeersch, P.-W., & Heylighen, A. (2014). Reality check: Notions of accessibility in today’s architectural design practice. In Y.-K. Lim, K. Niedderer, J. Redstreom, E. Stolterman, & A. Valtonen (Eds.),Proceedings of DRS2014 international conference: Design’s big debates (pp. 1482–1491). Design Research Society. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/conference-volumes/13/
Weise, F. (2004). Being there: The library as place. Journal of Medical Library Association, 92(1), 6–13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314099/
Zallio, M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2021). Inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility in the built environment: A study of architectural design practice. Building and Environment, 206, 108352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108352
Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science (pp. 308-319). Libraries Unlimited.