Depositories and Repositories: Changing Models of Library Storage in the United States

May 20042nd International Conference on Repository Libraries

Depositories and Repositories: Changing Models of Library Storage in

the United States


Growth of Library Storage Facilities

63

18

11

0

5

10

15

20

1920 to 1990 Since 1990Year of Construction

Purpose-built Retrofit renovation


Individual

Binghamton UniversityCase Western ReserveCornell UniversityHarvard University Indiana University, BloomingtonLIBRARY OF CONGRESSMichigan State UniversityPenn State UniversityRice UniversitySouthern Illinois University, Carbondale Stanford University University of FloridaUniversity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

(opening 2004)University of Michigan University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pittsburgh University of South CarolinaUniversity of TexasVirginia Tech West Virginia UniversityYale University

Library Storage Facilities

CONStor (Five Colleges of Ohio)Duke University y

Johns Hopkins UniversityMinnesota Library Access Center

New England Regional DepositoryNortheastern Ohio Cooperative

Regional Library Depository ORBIS (planning stage)

PASCAL(Colorado Academic Libraries)

Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (RECAP)

Southeast Ohio Regional Library Depository

Southwest Ohio Regional Depository

Tri-Universities GroupUniversity of California Northern

Regional Library Facility University of California Southern

Regional Library Facility Washington Research Library

Consortium

Shared

Shared Facility

(about 15)43%

Individual Facility

(about 20)57%

http://library.lib.binghamton.edu/webdocs/storage.html


Facility Characteristics

• Most new facilities use Harvard-model high-density shelving

• Most Harvard-model facilities hold 1 to 2 million volumes per building module

• Capacities range from about 150,000 volumes (CONStor) to over 5 million (ReCAP and SRLF)


Typical Depository Services

• Accessioning/shelving

• Cleaning and conservation

• Long-term or permanent storage

• Preservation/conservation

• Physical item delivery

• Electronic delivery

• Onsite patron access (reading room)


Washington Research Library Consortium

• 8 university libraries in Washington, DC• Shared collection and shared catalog for

consortial borrowing• Volumes interfiled on shelves• Almost 1 million items stored currently• Expansion room for 2 million more


Minnesota Library Access Center (MLAC)

• Built into caverns 84 feet underground, 600 feet long, 70 feet wide

• Includes volumes from public libraries as well as academic

• All items stored in MLAC are available for use by any Minnesota resident


New England Regional Depository

• Currently 3 depositing libraries, available to 700 NELINET members

• Separate collections• Volumes interfiled on shelves• Facility owned and operated by vendor


Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (ReCAP)

• New York Public Library, Columbia University, Princeton University

• Separate collections and catalogs • Shelves allocated by library and physically separate• Over 4 million volumes stored currently, total capacity

about 7 million, expansion room up to 37 million volumes


Shared Collection (Repository)

• Shared or delegated ownership

• Cooperative selection and retention

Five College (Massachusetts) Library Depository


Other “De Facto” Repositories

• Five Colleges (Ohio) CONStor• PASCAL (Colorado)

• Voluntary de-duplication– No duplicates allowed in storage– Original owners retain ownership of stored

volumes, guarantee to make available to other members

– Other members rely on that guarantee to de-accession from their own collections


Ownership • Libraries still valued in part by

collection size

• Faculty fear loss of ownership of their particular research material

• Libraries reluctant to weed campus copies to rely on repository copy

Issues Raised by Change from Depository to Repository


Governance• Many shared facilities are based on voluntary

participation

• Need specific legal commitment for perpetual access to stored copy to facilitate deaccessioning local copies

Issues Raised by Change from Depository to Repository


From Depository To Repository

In-process, in discussion: – University of California Libraries Shared

Collection– Washington Research Library Consortium

(WRLC)


University of California Shared Collections

• “The University of California shared collection consists of information resources jointly purchased or electively contributed by the UC libraries…”

• “…the [Regional Library Facilities] could and – if UC was to make good on its archival responsibilities – should have both a “storage” function and a “shared collection” function…”

• UC Shared Print Archive project to store print copies of Elsevier and ACM titles


• Ad hoc (“coincidental”) deposits rather than selected collections

• Serial runs not necessarily complete

• Stored copy may not be the best copy

• Deliver only electronically to preserve print copy? Or allow physical delivery and risk loss or damage?

Other Depository to Repository Issues


From Individual Repositories to a Repository Network

• Increasing reliance on digital resources increases the need for archival print copies

• Existing depositories form a natural infrastructure to support an international network of print archives


How To Make the Transition

• What is already stored?– Interdepository inventory project– Consistent mechanism for identifying

stored/archived materials• What should be stored?

– Identify collecting responsibilities. Categories? Specific titles?

– How many copies?• What services should be provided?


Distributed Collections ModelAdapted from and used with permission of Brian Schottlaender

Increasing shared management

Decreasing library autonomy

Increasing archival assurance

Decreasing object access

Primary Service Layer: Local Libraries

“Bright”

Full user services, access, circulation, significant redundancy

Tertiary Service Layer: Archival Repositories

“Dark” No user services, emergency institutional services, planned redundancy

Secondary Service Layer: Regional Repositories

“Dim”

Limited user services, planned redundancy


Gathering Momentum in the U.S.

• 1999: “A regional system of last copy depositories is needed for the twenty-first century…” Vernon Knisling

• 1999: “Over the next ten years or so, … we will begin to see cooperation among different library storage facilities… The idea would be for individual storage facilities … to agree on what materials or kinds of materials would be stored at which facilities, and what access rights the affiliated libraries would have.” Lizanne Payne, keynote address, ALA LAMA Library Storage preconference

• 2001: “[We need to] advocate for the development of regional repositories of artifactual collections that reduce duplication of effort, create economies of scale, and ensure that the greatest number of unique or scarce priority items are preserved and made accessible to researchers. “ Abby Smith, The Evidence in Hand

• 2003: “Strengthen the network of print archives, depositories, and “libraries of record.” Action Agenda, CRL PAPR conference


End Note

Since all library space is finite

-- and it is --

a decision to remove a duplicate volume on campus and rely on a repository copy

is

a decision to reserve valuable space on campusfor a future unique volume

Depositories and Repositories: Changing Models of Library Storage in the United States

Documents

Transcript of Depositories and Repositories: Changing Models of Library Storage in the United States