The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib

Assessing access: Surveying user services at library high density

storage facilities☆
Jennifer A. Maddox Abbott
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 809 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Millions of library items are held in storage locations, but how well are libraries providing access to those
High density storage materials? A survey of North American research libraries was conducted to examine the services that were
User services available at library storage facilities for researchers and students before the global pandemic, during the
Access
pandemic, and as libraries adjust and plan for the new normal as the pandemic recedes. In addition, results of
Collections
previous studies of storage facilities are compared to understand historical trends in access to library materials
held in storage. A better understanding of user services as a component of library storage facilities will allow
libraries to better serve the needs of scholars and researchers as well as provide insight to those who may be
planning future library storage facilities.

“Just as there are two ways of growing rich, one by increasing a man's pandemic, and as libraries plan and adjust for the new normal as the
possessions, the other by diminishing his desires, so there are two ways for pandemic recedes. In addition, the author compares results of previous
making room in libraries, one by adding to the size of the building, the studies to explore historical trends in access for library materials held in
other by diminishing the size of the collection.” (Hosmer, 1903, p.3). storage.
The way different libraries use the term storage can vary, as well as
naming conventions for using shelving, off-site, or high density for the
Introduction
different storage facilities. In general, library high density storage fa­
cilities shelve materials by size rather than call number to maximize
Utilizing a facility to store library collections has become an essential
storage space, have no direct patron access, are usually separate from
component of large research libraries in North America. Storage has long
the main library bookstacks and often off campus, and typically have
been considered an acceptable solution to a problem, but it has not
preservation-quality environmental controls set around 50 degrees
necessarily been viewed as a service that is being offered to library users.
Fahrenheit and 30 % relative humidity.
Discussions around library storage typically don't focus on services, but
Most facilities have 30+ foot-high shelving, storing materials in trays
as library storage facilities become more and more common, it is worth
for retrieval by an operator using an order-picker lift. This is referred to
investigating the services that are being offered at these facilities in
as the Harvard Model, as they were the first to construct a facility in this
order to better understand and evaluate the accessibility of these sizable
way (Payne, 2007). The other system most commonly utilized is an
collections of library materials. Assessing the user services offered onsite
Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS), with volumes stored in
at library high density storage facilities will allow libraries to better
bins that are retrieved by robotic mechanism. Library storage facilities
serve the needs of scholars and researchers accessing this vast amount of
are all designed with the same goal of efficiently storing large quantities
content, as well as provide insight for those institutions planning future
of physical library materials, but each is built uniquely to meet local
library storage facilities.
needs (Priddle & McCann, 2015). This individualized design and oper­
A survey was conducted to understand more clearly the services that
ational planning includes the services that may be offered onsite,
are available at library storage facilities for students and researchers.
whether they be more traditional storage services such as circulating
Results compare user services before the global pandemic, during the

☆
This manuscript has not been published, nor is it under consideration for publication elsewhere.The author has no competing interests or conflicts of interest.The
author would like to thank all those who took the time to participate in this survey.
E-mail address: maddox5@illinois.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102718
Received 21 February 2023; Received in revised form 17 April 2023; Accepted 17 April 2023
Available online 25 April 2023
0099-1333/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.A. Maddox Abbott
materials to patrons and scanning for Interlibrary Loan or other docu­
ment delivery services, or more expanded services such as the avail­
ability of a reading room, computing and printing equipment, or
reference services.
Literature review
Background
Although collection development has been trending toward elec­
tronic access and digital collections, libraries continue to struggle to
store their print collections. In addition to the decreased demand for
access to print, more and more-diverse user spaces are desired over
storing low-use print items. The value of the storage facility is not just
creating more space for newer materials in other library spaces but in
also creating a more welcoming environment for patrons (Collins et al.,
2006).
Libraries utilizing storage facilities is not a new idea—even the
Alexandrian Library, the world's first comprehensive research library,
had a separate storage facility that held 48,000 duplicate scrolls (Block,
2000). Fast forward to 1902, when President Eliot of Harvard College
(now Harvard University) recognized the need for off-site storage to
relieve space issues, addressing the need for more storage space for li­
brary books.
“It seems to me clear that a book which is worth keeping at all ought
to be kept accessible; that is, where it can be found, on demand, with a
reasonable expenditure of time and labor. The problem, then, is to
devise a mode of storing disused books, so that they may be kept safe and
accessible, and yet at a low cost for shelter and annual care. The most
obvious considerations of economy demand that disused books, or books
very seldom used, should be stored in inexpensive buildings on cheap
land. […] I am not proposing a crematorium for dead books, but only a
receiving-tomb. Neither am I proposing that the bibliophile or the
antiquarian should be absolutely deprived of his idols, but only that his
access to them should be made somewhat less convenient and attrac­
tive.” (Eliot, 1978, p. 77–81)
President Eliot's suggestion rocked the library community. Concerns
were raised related to “ease of access, delivery times, browsability, and
organization for retrieval” (Reynolds et al., 2020, p. 21). These are
concerns that continue to be heard today. Although the recommenda­
tions were not particularly well received, librarians have long known
that a not-insignificant number of items in library collections go unused.
One response to Eliot attempted to calm the community:
“The echoes of President Eliot's famous suggestion of last year, in his
paper before this association, have been very far-reaching, but it has not
always been remembered that they were the outgrowth of distinctly
cramped conditions at the Harvard University Library. There are, of
course, many of our libraries which are not yet in that cramped situa­
tion. While, therefore, all that was at that time suggested was interesting
and instructive, it is not every library that needs to turn to those extreme
measures as a means of deliverance. […] When our storage conditions
become serious, and the question of more space is an imperative one, all
librarians will cheerfully give due consideration to the question of
‘storage buildings' for the so-called ‘little used books.’” (Foster, 1903, p.
17, 19)
The prediction of librarians cheerfully embracing the discussion of
storage was not fully realized. According to the 1977 ARL Spec Kit
survey, it is “probably true to say that book storage has not been adopted
with any great enthusiasm anywhere,” and instead it is “typically
approached in a largely negative spirit, as an undesirable necessity at
best, an unreasonable imposition at worst. […] The librarian forced to
store books is in a position of a salesman who doesn't believe in his
product very much and who is trying to sell it to a buyer who is either
indifferent or hostile” (Association of Research Libraries, 1977, p. 3; p.
14).
The idea of moving little-used items from the main collection to store
2
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718
in a less accessible location came to fruition in 1941, when Harvard and
other Massachusetts institutions formed a cooperative storage library,
the New England Deposit Library (Association of Research Libraries,
1977). In 1986 Harvard University opened its own high density storage
facility, and the library storage industry changed. It was recognized that
browsing the collection did not need to be accommodated because the
materials were off-site, and so it was no longer necessary to organize
materials in call number order. Space could be better utilized through
warehouse principles, shelving material by size instead of subject
(Lehman & Lennertz, 2019).
By the end of the 20th century, Harvard's space concerns were shared
by other research libraries struggling to manage their large, and
growing, print collections. Libraries were undergoing a transformation,
not just for growing collections but for the growing interest in new and
innovative services, as well. The increasing size of physical library col­
lections ran into even more space issues as campuses grew. Due to land
locked campuses without room to grow, as well as the cost of building in
highly populated areas, academic libraries began turning to off-site
storage as a solution to overcrowding in bookstacks as well as the de­
mand for more user spaces for things other than book storage (van­
Duinkerken et al., 2018).
Moving collections to storage is rarely a popular decision, but li­
braries were coming to terms with the fact that it was better to deliver
books to patrons than to use prime spaces to store rarely used journals
(Young, 1997). Most Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries
were housing significant numbers of items in storage facilities off-site,
and the rate of new construction and renovation to existing buildings
continued to accelerate. Several strategic advantages were realized,
including the cost-saving benefits of building off-site, the lower oper­
ating costs per volume for books in storage, the efficient utilization of
space, better preservation conditions, and better protection of library
collections (Merrill-Oldham & Reed-Scott, 1999).
User concerns
The concerns users have with library materials being held in storage
are related to reduced access, including the inability to browse and
unexpectedly discover materials, difficulty requesting materials, long
retrieval times, and trouble understanding what is being held in storage
(Kruger, 2003). One survey focused on special collections moved to
storage found the biggest impact was in the area of public service,
particularly retrieval time and the “impact on patron use and satisfac­
tion” (Priddle & McCann, 2015, p. 659).
Circulation is often used as a criterion for transferring materials off-
site, but this is not the only metric of use of library materials. Scholars in
the humanities and social sciences have pointed out that those seldom-
used items are necessary for meticulous scholarship, and “[r]elegating
such materials to a remote location—one that precludes browsing of the
collection—undermines the mission of a research library” (Seaman,
2003, p. 99).
The concerns related to the disappearance of browsability are not felt
equally across the board. One survey of faculty and graduate students
found significantly different usage behaviors of print materials by pa­
trons based on their area of study. Participants were asked how often
they use books in the library to refer to without necessarily checking
them out, and 45 % of respondents in the humanities said often,
compared to 18 % in the social sciences and 10 % in the sciences. In
addition, almost 75 % of respondents in the humanities said they were
dependent on browsing, compared to 43 % in the social sciences and 28
% in the sciences (Schroeder et al., 2013). Overall, results indicated a
high tolerance for print books and journals being stored off-site when
the content was also available electronically. Other key takeaways
included that users were willing to wait at least a short time for retrieval,
and they relied heavily on electronic bibliographic access for materials
held in storage.
Bibliographic access becomes even more important for collections
J.A. Maddox Abbott
that cannot be browsed. The motivation for enhancing bibliographic
records is an attempt to recreate the physical browsing experience of
open stack material, but in an online environment for materials that are
held in closed stacks (Kruger, 2003). For this to be successful, the
bibliographic descriptions and the tools for accessing materials need to
be robust enough to make up for the lack of browsability,” (Hazen,
2000). Studies have shown that the down sides to storage can be bet­
tered when items in the collection are described fully (Shlomo, 2003). It
is well established that having minimal records inhibit use of those
materials, and studies have demonstrated an increase in use after
additional subject headings and table of contents were added to the
bibliographic record (Kruger, 2003). Several studies indicate an
increased use of materials that have been moved to storage, and that
trend is believed to continue (vanDuinkerken et al., 2018).
Storage facilities are increasingly being seen as departmental li­
braries, one of many library locations serving patrons. As part of that,
onsite user services should not be assumed to be unnecessary or unde­
sirable. It is undeniable that some research requires the consultation of
physical materials. Reading rooms may be used for providing the space
to view materials held in the facility, such as large runs of journal vol­
umes, without having to make multiple successive material requests.
Onsite user space can save time, transportation costs, potential damage
to library materials, and give more control to library users (Bellanti,
1993).
This type of research may not be as important for all disciplines, but
it remains very important for some. So although a reading room may not
get much foot traffic, it may still be a valuable service to offer patrons, as
this form of access is necessary for some scholars to perform their work.
“At least in the humanities, the shift in the journals ecosphere towards
electronic formats has not yet been as complete as one might expect,”
(Oesterheld, 2018, p. 83). A library's storage methods should not
decrease necessary access to desired research materials, and it is possible
for services at off-site facilities to actually improve access, such as
providing faster electronic delivery than from traditionally shelved
collections (Currie et al., 2006). In fact, improvements in cataloging and
delivery options may actually allow for materials to more accessible
than before (Block, 2000).
Previous storage surveys
Surveys of library storage facilities have been conducted periodi­
cally. Although they do not use identical definitions or focus on the exact
same questions, there are points of comparison to look for historical
trends. ARL published several Spec Kits related to remote shelving fa­
cilities over the years, namely in 1977, 1990, 1999, and 2006. These
each included results of a survey of ARL libraries. In addition, OCLC
released a report on storage facilities and the future of print in 2007,
“Library Storage facilities and the future of print collections in North
America” (Payne, 2007), and more recently, a national survey of storage
facilities was conducted in 2016 (Laskowski, 2016).
In 1990, 45 libraries reported having a storage facility built or in the
planning stages (Steel, 1990). In 1999, that number had increased
slightly to 49 libraries (Merrill-Oldham & Reed-Scott, 1999). By 2006,
just seven years later, that number jumped to 68 (Deardorff & Aamot,
2006), and in 2016, 70 libraries reported they used a storage facility for
collections or were in the process of planning the construction of one
(Laskowski, 2016).
The most common services offered at facilities, unsurprisingly, has
historically been retrieving materials to circulate to patrons, followed by
photocopying/scanning for Interlibrary Loan or other Document De­
livery services. In 1999, 38 facilities circulated materials and 16 mailed
photocopied pages to patrons (Merrill-Oldham & Reed-Scott, 1999). By
2016, 57 reported retrieving materials for patrons, and 55 scanned
materials for ILL/DD (Laskowski, 2016).
Reading rooms have steadily been included in approximately half of
library storage facilities—19 had an onsite reading room in 1990, 31 had
3
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718
one in 2006, and nearly half (53 %) had an onsite reading room in 2016
(Deardorff & Aamot, 2006; Laskowski, 2016; Steel, 1990).
Although there is considerable discussion in the literature about
faculty and student concerns related to sending library materials to
storage, in 1990 only four (8 %) library storage facilities reported con­
ducting any evaluation of services (Steel, 1990), and six (10 %)
answered yes to the same question in 1999 (Merrill-Oldham & Reed-
Scott, 1999). In 2006, 23 respondents reported that they had per­
formed evaluation activities, but there “is little evidence of formal
evaluation specific to remote shelving facilities,” as 2 reported con­
ducting focus groups, 7 surveyed users, and 16 relied on informal
feedback (Deardorff & Aamot, 2006, p. 14).
Methods
In Fall 2021 a survey was conducted of North American libraries to
create a better understanding of the current availability of user services
at library storage facilities. In order to better compare results to previous
research, questions related to demographic facility information were
drawn from Mary S. Laskowski’s 2016 survey of library storage facil­
ities. In addition, her breakdown of services surveyed were mirrored and
expanded on in order to explore user services more explicitly and
thoroughly while also looking for possible trends in storage services over
the past five years. The Qualtrics survey was shared with ALA storage-
and collection management related interest groups, storage and shared
print listservs, and a short list of known institutions with high density
storage facilities in order to gather the broadest range of perspectives
while targeting individuals who are most familiar with their institution's
storage facility. Permission was obtained from the author’s Institutional
Review Board in September 2021. The survey questions can be found in
Appendix A.
Results
A total of 66 survey responses were received, with 44 participants
completing the majority of questions. Sixty-five responses (98 %) indi­
cated that their institution has a high density storage facility for library
materials, and 1 (2 %) has plans to build one. No library had more than
one response to the survey.
Facility information
General information about the facilities and their relationship to
their larger campus was gathered to look for any trends in storage fa­
cility features and services. Not particularly surprising, the majority of
responses came from large, public ARL libraries. Of 51 responses
received, 42 (82 %) were from public institutions and 9 (18 %) were
private. Similarly, 42 responses (82 %) came from Association of
Research Libraries (ARL) libraries. Twenty-nine (56.9 %) responses
came from institutions with a total student enrollment >30,000 stu­
dents, six (11.8 %) had 20,000–30,000 students, seven (13.7 %) had
10,000–20,000 students, two (3.9 %) had 5000–10,000 students, and
seven (13.7 %) reported enrollment size <5000 students (see Table 1).
The majority of facilities are either on campus or within five miles of
campus (22.7 % and 40.9 %, respectively). A total of 11.4 % reported
Table 1
Total student enrollment.
Student enrollment Responses
<5000 7 (13.7 %)
5000-10,000 2 (3.9 %)
10,00-20,000 7 (13.7 %)
20,000-30,000 6 (11.8 %)
>30,000 29 (56.9 %)
Total 51 (100 %)
J.A. Maddox Abbott The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718

being 6–10 miles from campus, 20.5 % are 11–25 miles away, and 4.5 % Table 2
are between 26 and 50 miles away from the main campus library loca­ When storage facilities opened.
tion (see Fig. 1). Responses
As seen in Table 2, the majority of responses reported that their fa­
1980s 4 (9 %)
cilities have been built within the last twenty years, with the largest 1990s 10 (23 %)
number of facilities (41 %) opening between 2000 and 2009, and 25 % 2000s 18 (41 %)
opening since 2010. 2010s 11 (25 %)
The size of these facilities vary, but approximately half (52 %) re­ Total 43 (100 %)

ported a projected capacity in the range of 3.1–6 million items, with 16

% of facilities being larger and 32 % smaller (see Table 3).
Of 44 responses, half (50 %) of the facilities are at >75 % of their
total projected capacity, with 34 % reporting being in the range of
51–75 % full, 14 % are 26–50 % full, and only 2 % of facilities reported
being under 25 % full (see Fig. 2).
User services
Several survey questions focused on the historical, current, and
future status of services offered to patrons. When asked about the level
of satisfaction with the current user services that are available at their
institution's storage facility, 27 (66 %) respondents reported being very
satisfied, 10 (24 %) were somewhat satisfied, 4 (10 %) reported feeling
neutral, and no one reported being somewhat dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with their current services offered (Fig. 3).
Of 39 responses, 9 (23 %) indicated that there are plans to add or
expand onsite user services at the storage facility in the future, with 30
(77 %) indicating there are no plans. Respondents were asked whether
their facility has staff dedicated to public services (as opposed to staff
splitting their time between public service and working in the vaults),
and 23 % reported having dedicated staff, while 77 % did not. Campus-
or public-transportation options were available for patrons at 17 (44 %)
of the facilities, and not available at 22 (56 %) of the storage facilities.
When asked whether there was value or a need to have public-facing,
user services available onsite at the high density storage facility, two
thirds of responses—66 %—said no, with 32 % responding yes (Fig. 4).
Pandemic impact
The survey also asked about the impact of the global pandemic on
user services at high density storage facilities. Nearly a third (32 %)
reported that the pandemic had no impact on the storage facility's user
services, with 68 % reporting an impact on services (Fig. 5).
The survey asked what services were provided for patrons at the high
density storage facility before the pandemic began, what services were
provided during the pandemic, and what services are intended after the
pandemic recedes. See Fig. 6.
As seen in past surveys, retrieving materials and delivering to other
library locations for patrons to pick up and Scanning for ILL or other
Table 3
Projected capacity of storage facilities.
Number of items Responses
<1 million 5 (11 %)
1.1–3 9 (21 %)
3.1–6 million 23 (52 %)
6.1–9 million 3 (7 %)
>9 million 4 (9 %)
Total 44 (100 %)
document delivery services were the most common services offered, and
they, along with information via social media or other online outreach,
were the least impacted by the pandemic. The services that saw the
largest decreases during the height of the pandemic were tours of the
facility, reading room availability for onsite access and use of storage
materials, and reading room availability for onsite independent study.
Substantial increases were seen in mailing retrievals directly for
patron use and offering onsite curb-side pickup. Curb-side pickup
decreased following, presumably, the re-opening of onsite spaces. More
facilities were mailing materials directly to patrons at the time of this
survey than they had before the pandemic began. As with many
pandemic-related services, it is not clear whether that service will
remain in place as an enhanced service offering, or whether things will
eventually return to pre-pandemic operations.
Reading room
Consistent with previous survey results, 20 of 39 responses (51 %)
currently have a reading room. Of those reading rooms, 17 were a part of
the original plan for the space and 2 were added later (and 1 no response
to this question). At the author’s institution, for example, the reading
room space was a part of the original building but was not opened up for
patron use until nearly ten years later. Seventeen shared their reading
room hours, with 10 (59 %) indicating set hours and 7 (41 %) being open
by appointment only. The reading rooms with hours have very similar
schedules; all 10 are open from 9:00 am to 4:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, with several opening slightly earlier in the morning and a couple
offering evening and Saturday hours.

Fig. 1. The distance between the high density storage facility and main library/campus. n = 44.

4
J.A. Maddox Abbott The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718

room annually (or approximately 23 patrons per week on average).

Discussion

Even “the best bibliographic control and the most sophisticated

storage arrangements mean little unless users can readily obtain the
materials they want.” (Hazen, 2000, p. 178). The storage facility envi­
ronment necessitates mediated retrieval, and services that promote
effective delivery of materials to patrons are essential. Service is the link
between users and the stored collections, and the “quality of these ser­
vices has had a significant impact on the acceptance of the high-density
facility by research library users” (Hulse, 2001, p. 193). Good access to
the collections held in storage is what makes it a palatable alternative to
using central library spaces. As mentioned earlier, Harvard's depository
was greeted with extreme resistance, but a record of consistent service
won over many skeptics (Young, 1997).
The survey results indicate that libraries are satisfied with the cur­
rent level of service they provide for users, with 90 % being very- or
somewhat satisfied with the services offered at their facility. Surpris­
ingly, though, 66 % of respondents did not think there was a value or
need to have services onsite at the storage facility. The author did not
expect to be in the minority, as there is a strong local sentiment for the
need for public services, with several initiatives aimed at assessing users'
needs across campus libraries as part of a substantial library building

Fig. 2. The percentage of the facility that has been filled with materials. n = 44.

The resources available for patrons in storage facilities' reading

rooms are seen in Table 4. Almost all of the reading rooms have tables
and chairs workspaces available for patron use, 55 % have computers,
50 % have scanners, 40 % have printers, 40 % have photocopiers
available, and a quarter of reading rooms have comfortable seating
available. There was an opportunity to write in other resources, and
three responses each mentioned one additional feature: audio/visual
equipment, digital cameras, and microfilm readers.
When asked how frequently the reading room was used, 18 respon­
ded to this question, with most reporting no to low use; 3 reported that it
was never used, 10 indicated use within the range of once per month to
once per year, and 4 described low use ranging from 2 to 10 patrons per Fig. 4. Do you think there is value/need to have public-facing user services
week. One facility reported an average of 1200 patrons in the reading available onsite at the high density storage facility? n = 41.

Fig. 3. How satisfied are you with the current user services that are available at your institution's storage facility? n = 41.

5
J.A. Maddox Abbott The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718

expected. Each library faces similar but different combinations of chal­

lenges that need to be considered, and so each facility is unique. In 1977,
the situation was described this way: “it is perhaps not too unfair to
characterise the present status of book storage in larger academic li­
braries on the whole as representing a group of pragmatic responses to
ad hoc situations, rather than planned responses to an emerging reality”
(Association of Research Libraries, 1977, p. 8). Certainly planning has
improved, but the operations at high density storage facilities have also
changed over time. “No longer a place where materials go to sit idle in
case of possible future need, many materials are moving in and out of
high-density storage facilities with much greater frequency than origi­
nally anticipated” (Laskowski, 2016, p. 150). It may not be feasible to
offer new or additional services at every facility, but libraries should
evaluate whether they are serving patron needs to the fullest potential.

Fig. 5. Did the pandemic impact your storage facility's user services? n = 41. Table 4
Reading room resources available for patrons.
project (University Library, 2022). Because library storage is a solution Resource Number of reading rooms
to a local problem, every facility is different. There are different needs, Chairs at tables/workspace 18 (90 %)
purposes, and intents, which may impact the services that make sense Computer(s) 11 (55 %)
for users at that library. For example, if the purpose is deep storage, Scanner(s) 10 (50 %)
preservation of the items for the future is the focus more than providing Printer(s) 8 (40 %)
Photocopier(s) 8 (40 %)
access currently. Special collections have different needs than general
Comfortable chairs/couches 5 (25 %)
circulating collections. And yet, service should still be a consideration. Othera 3 (15 %)
Whether the facility is located in the heart of campus, in an adjacent a
One response each: audio/visual equipment, digital cameras, and microfilm
research park, or miles away in the middle of corn fields will impact the
readers. n = 20.
services needed or desired, as well as the access that can be reasonably

Fig. 6. User services provided at high density storage facilities before, during, and after the pandemic. n = 41.

6
J.A. Maddox Abbott The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718

The global pandemic necessitated a change in services for the ma­
jority of storage facilities, but nearly a third (32 %) did not feel the
pandemic impacted their facility's user services. Each campus had a
unique response based on a wide range of external factors and local
needs. And the pandemic is not yet over. Libraries have transitioned
services at different rates, and because of the timing of this survey and
the ongoing nature of the pandemic, it is not clear whether some
changes in service will stay, such as the increased number of facilities
mailing materials directly to patrons.
Libraries continue to adapt to the changing needs of patrons, and
storage facilities are an important component. It may be true that “the
rising generations of digital natives may no longer have the same ex­
pectations that libraries will serve as massive independent warehouses
for the research ‘long tail’, but they will expect seamless digital dis­
covery and delivery of print-based copy” (Jilovsky & Genoni, 2008, p.
12). The preferences of users will change as new technology permits
discoverability and access that couldn't have been imagined before.
Expanding scanning services is one example of “collections as a service”
(Linden et al., 2018, p. 94).
As needs (and technology) evolve, libraries must continue to assess
whether there are improvements that could be made that would help
users compensate for the resultant obstacles of materials being in stor­
age. “Are there better organizational models to improve user site access,
perhaps becoming more of a branch library than warehouse” (Seeds,
2000, p. 108). The author’s facility is located on the western edge of
campus, one mile from the main library. It is becoming an increasingly
valuable location not only for researchers with specific content needs
but also as the closest departmental library location for some students,
particularly as student housing in the neighborhood continues to
expand. Results confirm that reading rooms often get very little use.
However, that does not necessarily make the service less valuable for the
portion of patrons wishing to use materials that are now stored in a more
inconvenient way. Onsite space may not be necessary for some facilities,
but there should be designated space somewhere for patrons to interact
with the physical materials held in library collections. Libraries using
storage has become an “increasingly acceptable solution for balancing
the demand for both collections and user space” (Deardorff & Aamot,
2006, p. 17). The growing recognition of benefits such as enhanced
catalog discovery and ideal preservation conditions have greatly
improved the storage facility's reputation.
Conclusions and Future Recommendations
Although each is striving for similar goals, every library storage fa­
cility is unique. Each was designed to meet local needs, and although
that may look different for each institution, it is essential to create a
“best-practice service environment” to ensure the facility is “viewed as a
live, active and accessible collection rather than a ‘dark store’ for un­
wanted print items” (Jilovsky & Genoni, 2008, p. 12). These materials
are not just sitting. They are being accessed. They are being found and
are being used. These facilities are not book tombs for less used materials
to go to die but rather living, evolving collections. Because each facility
is impacted by different factors, user studies to better understand
whether local users' needs are being successfully met would be
beneficial.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
I certify that all authors have seen and approved the final version of
the manuscript being submitted. All steps have been completed by the
single author.
Declaration of competing interest
None.

Appendix A. Survey tool

User services at library high density storage facilities

Facility information

1. Please provide demographic information regarding your type of institution:

• Public Institution
• Private Institution
2. Is your library an Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Library?
• Yes
• No
3. Please provide approximate total student enrollment (undergraduate and graduate) figures for your institution:
• <5000
• 5000-10,000
• 10,000–20,000
• 20,000-30,000
• >30,000
4. Does your institution have a high density storage facility for library materials? [If not, the survey will jump you to the end]
• Yes, operated locally by the Library
• Yes, we have a state or consortially operated storage facility
• Yes, we participate in a commercially developed and managed storage facility
• No, but we have plans to build one
• No, we have no immediate plans for investing in high density storage
• Other [text box]
5. In what year was the storage facility opened?
6. How close is the distance between the high density storage facility and the library/other libraries on campus?
• On campus
• <5 miles
• 6–10 miles
• 11–25 miles

7
J.A. Maddox Abbott The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718

• 26–50 miles
• >50 miles
7. What is the total projected maximum storage capacity of the facility?
• <1 million items
• 1.1–3 million items
• 3.1–6 million items
• 6.1–9 million items
• >9 million items
8. How full is the storage facility?
• 0–25 % full
• 26–50 % full
• 51–75 % full
• 76–100 % full

User services
The following questions relate to services provided to users of the library storage facility.

9. What services were provided for patrons at your high density storage facility before the pandemic began, what services were provided during the
pandemic, and what services are you/do you intend to provide after the pandemic recedes?

Before During After

Retrieval for patrons, delivery to other library locations for pickup

Retrieval for patrons, on-site pickup in building
Retrieval for patrons, on-site curb-side pickup
Retrieval for patrons, materials mailed directly for patron use
Walk-in, on-demand retrieval for patrons
Reading Room for on-site access and use of storage materials
Reading Room for on-site independent study
Scanning for ILL or other Document Delivery services
Reference services for patrons
Information via social media or other online outreach
Tours of the facility
Other [text box]

10. Did the pandemic impact your storage facility's user services?
• Yes
• No
• [text box for comments]
11. Do you think there is value/need to have public-facing, user services available onsite at the high density storage facility?
• Yes
• No
• [text box for comments]
12. How satisfied are you with the current user services that are available at your institution's storage facility?
• very satisfied
• Somewhat satisfied
• Neutral
• Somewhat dissatisfied
• Very dissatisfied
13. Does your institution plan to add or expand onsite user services at the storage facility in the future?
• Yes
• No
• [text box for comments]
14. Does your facility have staff dedicated to public services (as opposed to staff splitting their time between public service and working in the
vaults)?
• Yes
• No
• [text box for comments]
15. Are campus-provided or public transportation options available for patrons to get to your storage facility?
• Yes
• No
• [text box for comments]
16. Does your institution's high density storage facility have a Reading Room or other patron study space? [If no, go to #21.]
• Yes

8
J.A. Maddox Abbott The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102718

• No, but there are plans to add one

• No, and there are no plans to add one
• [text box for comments]
17. Was the Reading Room included in the original opening of the facility or was it a later addition?
• The facility opened with a Reading Room
• The Reading Room was added later
• [text box for comments]
18. Which of the following does your facility have onsite for patron use? (Check all that apply)
• Chairs at tables/work space
• Comfortable chairs/couches
• Computer(s)
• Printer(s)
• Scanner(s)
• Photocopier(s)
• Other [with text box]
19. What days/hours is the Reading Room or study space open to patrons?
20. How well is the Reading Room or study space used? Please share any gate counts, statistics, or anecdotal information related to use.
21. Do you have any further comments or clarification that you would like to share regarding your institution's high density storage facility and the
services it provides?
22. Although all survey results will be reported anonymously, having the name of the institution for deduplication of the survey and for inclusion in
a list of institutions with high density storage facilities for enhanced communication within the professional community would be appreciated.
Please give us any institutional and contact information you are willing to share.

References Merrill-Oldham, J., & Reed-Scott, J. (1999). Library storage facilities, management, and
services: A SPEC kit. In SPEC Kit 242. Washington, DC: Association of Research
Libraries, Office of Leadership and Management Services. http://babel.hathitrust.
Association of Research Libraries. (1977). Remote Storage. SPEC Kit 39. Washington, D.C.:
org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015043196115.
Office of Management Studies.
Oesterheld, C. (2018). Supporting users: Ensuring access while preserving archival
Bellanti, C. Q. (1993). Access to library materials in remote storage. Collection
copies. In P. Vattulainen, & S. O’Connor (Eds.), Repositories for print: Strategies for
Management, 17(1–2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1300/J105v17n01_06
access, preservation, and democracy (pp. 75–88). De Gruyter Saur.
Block, D. (2000). Remote storage in research libraries: A microhistory. Library Resources
Payne, L. (2007). Library storage facilities and the future of print collections in North
and Technical Services, 44(4), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.44n4.184
America. OCLC Programs and Research. https://csul.net/sites/sul.fcla.edu/uplo
Collins, S. L., Dujmic, L. L., & Hurlbert, T. (2006). Going off-site: Implementing a plan for
ads/ss-oclc-storage-rept-11-02-07.pdf.
a library storage facility. Technical Services Quarterly, 23(3), 39–49. https://doi.org/
Priddle, C., & McCann, L. (2015). Off-site storage and special collections: A study in use
10.1300/J124v23n03_03
and impact in ARL libraries in the United States. College & Research Libraries, 76(5),
Currie, S., Corvene, S., & Steward-Marshall, Z. (2006). Challenges of off-site library
652–670.
storage facilities: Cataloging, access and management of off-site serials. Serials
Reynolds, S., Mercieca, P., Hooi, E., & Bramley, T. (2020). Books in transit: The logistics
Librarian, 50(3–4), 259–265.
of library book movement. Collection Management, 45(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/
Deardorff, T. C., & Aamot, G. J. (2006). Remote shelving services: SPEC kit 295.
10.1080/01462679.2019.1626784
Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
Schroeder, E., Martorana, J., & Granatino, C. (2013). Building faculty support for remote
Eliot, C. W. (1978). The division of a library into books in use, and books not in use, with
storage: A survey of collection behaviors and preferences. Collection Management, 38
different storage methods for the two classes of books. Collection Management, 2(1),
(4), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2013.841603
73–82.
Seaman, S. (2003). High-density off-site storage: Document delivery and academic
Foster, W. E. (1903). The treatment of books according to the amount of their use-II.
library research collections. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery &
Library Journal, 28, 17–19.
Information Supply, 13(3), 91–103.
Hazen, D. (2000). Selecting for storage: Local problems, local responses, and an emerging
Seeds, R. S. (2000). Impact of remote library storage on information consumers: ‘Sophie’s
common challenge. Library Resources and Technical Services, 44(4), 176–183. https://
choice’? Collection Building, 19(3), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/
doi.org/10.5860/lrts.44n4.176
01604950010337650
Hosmer, J. K. (1903). Some things that are uppermost: Address of the president. Library
Shlomo, E. T. (2003). Nicholson baker wasn’t all wrong: A collection development policy
Journal, 28, 3.
for remote storage facilities. Acquisitions Librarian, 15(30), 117–130.
Hulse, B. (2001). Access to collections. In D. A. Nitecki, & C. L. Kendrick (Eds.), Library
Steel, V. (1990). Remote storage: Facilities, materials selection, and user services: SPEC Kit
off-site shelving: Guide for high-density facilities (pp. 193–204). Libraries Unlimited.
164. Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management
Jilovsky, C., & Genoni, P. (2008). Changing library spaces: Finding a place for print. In
Services.
VALA conference proceedings. https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/51
University Library University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Envisioning the Library
75.
of the Future” (2022). www.library.illinois.edu/library-building-project/.
Kruger, B. (2003). Beyond the blueprints: Enhancing access to materials in remote
vanDuinkerken, W., Sullenger, P., & Kaspar, W. A. (2018). Library storage facilities: From
storage. Journal of Access Services, 1(3), 45–55.
planning to construction to operation. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-
Laskowski, M. S. (2016). High density storage: From there to here and beyond. Journal of
03988-5
Academic Librarianship, 42(2), 144–150.
Young, J. R. (1997). In the new model of the research library, unused books are out,
Lehman, K., & Lennertz, L. (2019). Profiles of academic library storage facility management
computers are in. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(8), A27.
strategies. New York: Primary Research Group.
Linden, J., Tudesco, S., & Dollar, D. (2018). Collections as a service: A research library’s
perspective. College and Research Libraries, 79(11), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.5860/
crl.79.1.86