University of South Florida St. PetersburgKaya van Beynen, M.Sc., M.A., Reference and Instruction LibrarianPatricia Pettijohn, MLIS, Head, Collection Development and Technical ServicesMarcy Carrel, MBA, MLIS, Reference and Instruction Librarian

USF St. Petersburg has experienced substantial growth as we evolve from a regional campus in a university system, to a separately accredited institution within that system.

From 2004 to 2008, the number of students increased by 18%.

Organizational Context

Environmental ContextThe Nelson Poynter Library of

the University of South Florida Saint Petersburg is a mid-sized academic library overlooking Bayboro Harbor

Built in 1996, the library has three floors and a total of 80,000 square feet, of which 54,000 is usable space

The most prominent architectural feature is a large atrium when visitors first enter the building.

Theoretical ContextThe General Value Principle (Bitgood, 2006)Visitors to public spaces unconsciously weigh the perceived or

actual costs against the perceived benefits to guide their interaction and movement choices.

The Economy of Movement Principle (Bitgood, 2005)People tend to walk on the right and turn right when confronted

with a choice in order to reduce their effort (by limiting the number of steps)

Only when presented with a desired leftward destination, do people veer left and cut across to their destination, and backtracking is rare.

MethodologyVisitor ObservationOver the course of a week, random samples of visitors

entering the library were observed for 5 minutes.  For each observation, the researcher mapped the path, stopping location(s), and activities of the visitor. 

Focus GroupsEach observation period was followed by a focus group asking

students about building use, barriers to use, and their ideas about library re-design.

MethodologyS

AM

PLE

OB

SE

RV

ATI

ON

FO

RM

Testing RedesignAfter each research cycle (observation and focus group)

changes were made to the library environment.  Repeating the cycle of research following each redesign allowed us to observe how these redesigned spaces were used, while focus groups allowed us to get direct feedback on design changes.

Observation was conducted 3 times over the course of a year (2007-2008).  A total of 624 library visitors were observed, representing 7% of the total library visitors during the observation weeks.

Three focus groups were conducted, with a total of 21 students participating.

Observation Results:Most frequent first stopsComputer commons (28.5%) Stairs (10.0%)Circulation (9.6%)Restrooms (7.1%)Reference Desk (6.5%)Current periodicals (4.3%)

Observation Results:45% of visitors made 1 stop only41% made 2 or 3 stops14% made 4 or more stopsThe number of stops per visitor increased dramatically

during the 3rd observation

Observed Activities:Using (such as the computer, printer, etc) – 52%Asking for Help (at the service desks)– 10%Laptop use – 3%Socializing – 9%

The level of socializing declined significantly during the 2nd observation week (OW2)

(OW1 -10%; OW2 -5%; OW3 – 10%)Observation week 2 coincided with many midterm

examinations and was just before spring break.

Observed Activities:Browsing – 13%

The percentage of browsing stops increased steadily over the 3 observation weeks

Visitors with 4 or more stops were much more likely to directly engage with a library display. These individuals accounted for 52% of all Browsing or Reading activities

Reading – overall 9%Only 2% of visitors read during Observation week 1This jumped to 15% during Observation week 2 (midterms)Reading activities remained high during OW 3 at 10%

Characteristics of Visitors with 4 or more stops

Driven visitors – A clearly defined purpose; efficient movement.

Nesting visitors – Planned for an extended stay; rearranged their space and made themselves comfortable.

Waiting visitors – Wandered or browsed; chatted or texted until joined by fellow visitor.

Browsing visitors – Seemed to lack a definitive goal; took their time looking at the displays.

Searching for Quiet SpaceSubgroup 10% of visitors who went directly upstairsPublic areas of 2nd and 3rd floors include the circulating

collection, study carrels, work tables, and private study rooms Area generally quietEither want a book or a quiet place to study

Focus Group ResultsStudents told us they wanted more electrical outlets for

laptops, comfortable chairs, group meeting spaces, and library signage.

They liked the library’s natural lighting and believed the library atrium was an ideal place on campus to meet friends.

They also indicated that they generally did not notice library exhibits.

RedesignLibrary atrium:Modular mobile displays

added to exhibit area Current events displays –

engaged ROTC studentsSituated along natural

pathwaysStudents in focus groups

reported not wanting to touch the book displays – in response added signage to encourage browsing

RedesignMobile new books cart Moved to 2 different locationsFinal location near the library

entrance to increase visibility

Result Increased visitor browsing and

reading of New Books based on # of stops and focus group comments

RedesignLaptop Bistro: (the space before)

• Under-utilized space located near library entrance. • Insufficient electrical outlets to meet student laptop use. • Obstructed views created by the current periodical shelves.

RedesignLaptop Bistro:After (electrical outlets for laptops, natural light)

• Area now a defined destination with a clear purpose• Increased electrical outlets for laptop use• Emphasizes the spaces’ attributes (natural light and easy visibility)

RedesignPoynter Presentation Corner (the space before)

• Lovely view, but underutilized by students. • Peripheral location - furthest area from the service desks, obstructed views

facilitated inappropriate behavior. • Weeded 10,000 journal issues and removed 5 ranges of shelves to create a

large open space.

RedesignPoynter Presentation Corner After (space is re-purposed)

Flexible space with mobile furniture – encourages users to reorganize it to suit their learning needs.•Student groups prepare presentations•Science Café and other speaker events

Implications & ConclusionsThe implications of this research finding are two-fold: 1. The library can reduce the visitor “costs” of displays by

situating them along the visitors’ natural pathways and thereby encourage greater interaction; and

2. The library can increase the visitors’ “benefits” by re-designing “costly” far-flung areas of the library as desirable destinations for students.

Ongoing testing of library redesign allows us to understand how visitors are using library space, and how we can direct their movement patterns to encourage interaction with library resources, services, and exhibits.

Selected BibliographyBennett, S. (2006). “The choice for learning.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol.

32 (1). Bitgood, S., Dukes, S., & Abbey, L. (2006). “Interest and effort as predictors of reading: a

test of the general value principle.” Current Trends in Audience Research. Vol. 19.  Bitgood S. & Dukes, S. (2005). “Not another step! Economy of movement and pedestrian

choice point behavior in shopping malls.” Environment and Behavior. Vol. 20 (10). Freeman, G. (2005). “The library as place: changes in learning patterns, collections,

technology and use.” In Library as Place: Rethinking Roles, Rethinking Space. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources.

 Shill, H.B. & Tonner S. (2004) “Does the building still matter? usage patterns in new, expanded, and renovated libraries, 1995-2002.” College & Research Libraries. March.

 Shill, H.B. & Tonner S. (2003) “Creating a better place: physical improvement in academic libraries, 1995-2002.”College & Research Libraries. November.