Factors Affecting Users' Assessment of the Economic Value

1

Factors Affecting Users' Assessment of the Economic Value of

University Library Services

< Table of Contents >

1. Introduction 2. Preliminary Survey

2.1 Measurement Method 2.2 P University’s Library Value Measurement 2.3 Q University’s Library Value Measurement

3. Hypothesis Development 4. Main Survey

4.1 Measurement Method 4.2 WTP regarding University Library Service

⑴ WTP by Service

⑵ WTP by Status and Major

⑶ WTP by University's Core Mission

5. Hypothesis Test

5.1 Difference in WTP Value by University Characteristics 5.2 Difference in WTP Value by User Characteristics 5.3 Difference in WTP Value by Whether Payment Card is Presented

6. Discussion 7. Conclusion References

2

Title: Factors Affecting Users' Assessment of the Economic Value of University Library Services Article Type: Research Paper Corresponding Author: Prof. Wonsik Shim, Ph.D. Corresponding Author's Institution: Sungkyunkwan University First Author: Prof. Young Man Ko, Dr. Phil. Order of Authors: Young Man Ko, Dr. Phil.; Wonsik Shim, Ph.D.; Soon-Hee Pyo Author names and affiliations:

Young Man Koa, Wonsik Shim

b, Soon-Hee Pyo

c

aDepartment of Library and Information Science, 53 Myeongnyun-Dong 3-Ga, Jongno-Gu,

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea (110-745), email: [email protected] bDepartment of Library and Information Science, 53 Myeongnyun-Dong 3-Ga, Jongno-Gu,

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea (110-745), email: [email protected] cInstitute for Knowledge and Information Management, 53 Myeongnyun-Dong 3-Ga, Jongno-Gu,

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea (110-745), email: [email protected]

Corresponding author: Wonsik Shim

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 82-2-2629-4293

Mobile: 82-10-2629-4293

Fax: 82-2-760-0326

3

1. Introduction

The demand for valuation methods of university libraries has resulted from the fact that

universities are being recognized as an important economic asset of national competitiveness.

This realization has led to an attempt to verify the effectiveness of investment in higher education,

and university libraries also have had a chance to reconsider and promote the importance of their

existence to their universities. The objective of this study is to demonstrate in concrete terms the

economic value of the library to the institution as a whole.

Another main factor for the demand for university library valuation has been the changes in the

information environment and the user environment. Today's users show a tendency to prefer free

information that is easily accessible and handy rather than information that is reliable and of a

high quality. In addition, many users consider electronic resources, which are accessible via a

subscription paid by the library, to be free resources that can be obtained by search engines

(Online Computer Library Center 2005). In this current situation, valuation of the university library

has become a way for libraries to prove their value as an asset to the university.

In an attempt to gather information about university libraries' values, Donovan (1996) targeted

Tulane University's law students, Wong and Webb (2011) studied A University (in Hong Kong)

students, and Jager (2002) worked with Capetown University's humanities students about the

relationship between the amount of the library's resources that were borrowed and study

achievement. In similar studies, Whitemire (2002) researched the effect of a university library's

resources and services on undergraduates' critical thinking abilities, while Matthews (2007) and

Munde and Marks (2009) investigated service factors that had a positive influence on university

libraries and their contributions. These studies quantitatively analyzed the grounds and the

degree that university libraries contribute, but they did not attempt an analysis of the economic

value of libraries.

Research on the services provided by university libraries from an economic standpoint was

conducted regarding the aspects of the reference service and collection service. Studies that

converted reference service to labor value began in 1980 by Cable (1980) and have been

continued by Kantor (1986), Abels (1997), and Kantor, Saracevic and D'Esposito-Wachtmann

(1995). Studies regarding the utility value of collection service have taken place in two directions.

One is the time value, which was given by King et al. (2004)'s study and measured the hours of

use of academic journals as time value. Tenopir and King (2007)'s study assessed the value of

time reduction by comparing the average journal usage time with cases done without journal

collection.

The other direction is one that focuses on developing a quantitative measure of the library’s

return on investment (ROI) by tying faculty’s use of library materials to the generation of grant

income. The focus to date in these studies has been on linking the use of library resources to

successful grant proposals, initially at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Luther

2008) and then at eight additional institutions worldwide (Tenopir et al. 2010).

Recently, Melo and Pires (2011) published a study that measured the economic value of the

Portuguese electronic scientific information consortium called “b-on”. In their study, the economic

value of the consortium was measured in two ways: the value of the time saved by using the

service and the contingent valuation method (CVM). The benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratios derived from

4

both methods were 1.91 and 3.32, respectively. As a means of quantifying the value of the library,

ROI or B/C calculations are now being extended to cover the value of all key library products and

services.

The values generated between the university library service and the user are generally divided

into individual services such as literature (books) service, reference service, space service,

interloan/text copy, user education sessions, and integrated services where respective disparate

services are combined (Saracevic & Kantor 1997, 546). These services create various values as

evidenced in reports made by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the

Research Information Network and the Research Libraries United Kingdom (RIN and RLUK).

The ACRL, which is based in the United States (US), arranged the categories, measurement

indices, and measurement factors of the contribution of university libraries to their universities in

guide book-form in "Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and

Report" (Oakleaf 2010). However, this report did not extract or examine real data or measure

their economic feasibility. In the UK, RIN and RLUK (2011) published a report entitled "The Value

of Libraries for Research and Researchers". This report measured the correlation between the

number of students doing research, the procurement of research funding, and the research

performance evaluation of the university against the number of the library's books, staff, and

budget of 67 higher education institutions in England. They also analyzed the value of services

the library provided to researchers and the library's level of contribution to research performance.

This report suggested a result based on empirical data, but it did not measure the values

contributed to various aspects of the university by the library; its range was also limited to values

provided by studies and researchers. Therefore, to measure the university library’s ROI, an in-

depth review of the value contributed by each service and the measurement method of that value

will be required.

The purpose of this article was to explore factors that influence university library users' economic

value assignments for various library services. Specifically, the study investigated the effect of

institutional and user characteristics as well as the presence of payment card information in the

CVM survey on users' WTP values. To answer this question, a preliminary survey was provided

by 2 university libraries located in Seoul, Korea. The hypothesis was set up based on the

problems and abnormalities that appeared in the preliminary survey process. To test the

hypothesis, a main survey, which calculated the WTP of the users of 4 university libraries that

differed in size, agents of funding, and locations was carried out. The data were drawn from a 12-

month study on the costs and value of library services at six Korean university libraries.

2. Preliminary Survey

2.1 Measurement Method

There were two objectives of this preliminary survey. One was to analyze the factors required for

value measurement of a university library and to identify any problems in the procedure and

methodology, while the other was to draw a hypothesis based on the problems found and to test

the possibility of what can be practically applied to measure the value of a university library.

Therefore, in this preliminary survey, we used the CVM, a direct measurement method, and time

value as well as an alternative service value, an indirect measurement method, to measure the

value of university library services.

5

The value measurement targets for the preliminary survey were the libraries of P and Q private

universities located in downtown Seoul. For P University’s library, the survey measured multiple

main service values with CVM. The survey asked students about their WTP values for 5 main

services: book lending, electronic scholarly information, reference services, user education

sessions, and space provision (reading room). Professors were inventoried regarding their WTP

values for lending services, electronic scholarly information, and reference services. For Q

University’s library, the survey measured the value of electronic scholarly information services

using 3 measurement methods: CVM, time value, and alternative service value. The survey

asked both professors and graduate students about the download numbers and the frequency of

utilization of electronic scholarly information services and their WTP using the charged thesis

shown in Table 1.

<Table 1> Value measurement plan outline of university libraries

P University’s library Q University’s library

Measurement composition

Multiple services vs. single measurement method

Single service vs. multiple measurement methods

Target service of measurement

Book lending, electronic scholarly info, reference services, user education, space provisions

Electronic scholarly info

Method CVM CVM, time value, alternative service value

Survey object

Undergraduate, graduate, professor Graduate, professor

Output

‧ WTP value of university library

service spoken by user

‧ ROI

‧ Time saved and cost by usage of

electronic scholarly information

‧ WTP value of university library

service spoken by user

‧ ROI

The survey was carried out at the university libraries’ lobbies and campuses from June to July

2011 by giving the questionnaires to the users and immediately collecting them after users had

finished. For P University’s library, 211 answer sheets (34 from professors and 215 from students)

were collected, and 211 sheets were analyzed; 4 sheets were unusable due to being

insufficiently answered. For Q University’s library, 207 sheets were collected, and 202 were

analyzed; 5 were incomplete and therefore were not included in our analysis.

2.2 P University’s Library Value Measurement

In the CVM survey for P University’s library users, the survey asked about the WTP in case the

university charged for each service. Considering that the research was exploratory, the survey

chose open-ended questions as the question form, which allowed respondents to describe the

value price freely rather than limiting them to multiple-choice questions, and suggested a

payment card that used the price of school convenient facilities or consumables (Table 2).

<Table 2> Payment card for P University library’s value measurement applying CVM

Item Price (unit: Won)

6

1 shuttle bus ticket 250

Cell phone charge in convenience store 1,000

Certificate issue per case 1,000

1 cup of Americano in the school café 2,000

Monthly fee for use of the gym 20,000

The study surveyed professors and students separately. Professors were asked 3 items: book

lending, full-text article download, and reference services. The study calculated the average

value, the 5%-trimmed average, and the median. The 5%-trimmed average is an average

calculated after cutting 5% off of both the maximum and the minimum values.

In a meta-analysis of CVM research, Noonan (2003) clarified that the mean value is generally 1.5

times higher than the median. The means and the medians measured in this study’s preliminary

survey partly agreed with Noonan’s work depending on the type of service, but there were cases

where the survey results were 2 to 5 times higher, so it was not feasible to draw a generalized

relationship. Thus, in the main survey process, the study uses the mean as the value price of the

university library and presents the median and the 5%-trimmed average as well.

According to the survey results, the differences among the mean, the median, and the 5%-

trimmed average were not large in WTP for students, but they were for professors. There was no

difference of WTP values between undergraduates and graduates for all service categories, but

large differences appeared between students and professors regarding book-lending services

(Tables 3 and 4).

<Table 3> P University students’ WTP (unit: Won)

1 Book lending

1 Journal

download

1 Referenc

e service

1 Library

use education

1-hr Reading

room use

1-hr Compute

r use

1-hr Seminar

room use

1 Movie in a

cinema room

Mean 664.8 775.1 304.1 3,834.7 483.8 454.4 994.8 1,057.1

Median 500.0 500.0 100.0 1,000.0 500.0 500.0 650.0 1,000.0

5%-trimmed

avg. 551.3 596,1 251.7 1607.8 420.3 413.2 846.9 940.9

<Table 4> P University professor’s WTP (unit: Won)

1 Book lending

1 International journal

download

1 Domestic journal

download

1 Reference service

Mean 7,317.6 6,746.2 3,258.5 3,338.8

Median 750.0 500.0 150.0 50.0

5%-trimmed

avg. 1366.0 845.4 329.7 277.1

2.3 Q University’s Library Value Measurement

7

The average number of students’ and professors’ recent original text downloads was 8, and it

took about 82.7 minutes to download them, resulting in an average of 10.3 minutes for 1 paper of

original text (Table 5).

<Table 5> Usage and use time of Q University’s electronic library system

Original text download number

in past month (case)

Time spent for downloading

original texts (min)

Average download time per paper

(min)

Mean 8.0 82.7 10.3

Median 3.0 30.0 -

When asked about using libraries and alternative services, 53% of the respondents answered

that there was no difference in hours of use. After surveying users who only used alternative

services about the extra time these alternative services took or saved, it was found that the sum

of all users’ time was 195.2 minutes more spent than library services and 41.6 minutes saved. To

standardize this figure, the survey subtracted the saved time of 41.6 minutes from the exceeding

time (195.2 minutes) and divided the result by 110, which was the number of users who said they

used an alternative service. As a result, it took an extra 1.4 minutes per case of alternative

service (Table 6).

<Table 6> Extra time spent on alternative service (unit: min)

N Minimum Maximum Mean

Standard deviation

Exceeding time on alternative service

30 1.00 1440.00 195.15 425.16

Saved time on alternative service

19 5.00 180.00 41.58 48.82

(Regarding only the alternative service users)

When asked whether there was an extra cost for alternative services, about 72% of respondents

answered that no extra costs were charged, and the average cost of alternate services was

12,318.1. This cost was divided by 109, the total number of respondents, for standardization, and

it appeared that 113 more expenses per case occurred compared to library services (Table 7).

<Table 7> Extra cost by alternative service (unit: Won)

N Mean Median Maximum Mode

Extra cost for to the use of an

alternative service 31 12,318.18 7,500 110,000 10,000

No extra cost for the use of an alternative

service 79 - - - -

(Regarding only the alternative service users)

8

The results of the 5%-trimmed average of WTP for journal usage show that the WTP for 1

domestic journal was 762.2 for students and 674.7 for professors, and for international journals,

the WTP was 1,394.4 for students and 2,167.0 for professors (Table 8).

<Table 8> WTP value of Q University’s electronic scholarly information (unit: Won)

Category N Mean Median 5%-trimmed

avg.

WTP for a domestic

journal

Professor and Researcher

35 814.34 500.0 674.7

Grad student, etc. 139 1001.40 500.0 762.2

WTP for an

international journal

Professor and Researcher

34 2452.94 1750.0 2167.0

Grad student, etc. 135 1880.89 1000.0 1394.4

3. Hypothesis Development

As a result of the analysis of the data obtained in the preliminary survey, it was determined that

the following data were needed: the value difference among university libraries regarding the

characteristics of universities, user characteristics, and the existence of a payment card.

▪The difference in university library service values according to the university’s characteristics

Each value of the same service was calculated differently depending on the university as a result

of the preliminary survey. The target universities of the preliminary survey were both located in

the capital area, but the result of WTP measurements among professors regarding electronic

scholarly information service showed that P University’s professors were willing to pay on

average ₩6746.2 per 1 international electronic scholarly information, and professors of Q

University were willing to pay ₩2452.9, which was a difference of about 300%. This finding

showed that university libraries’ value can differ depending on the university.

In this context, Whitmire (2002) found that a university library’s effect on students comes out

differently depending upon the core mission of the university, such as a research-oriented

university, a doctoral course-oriented university, a collegiate university, and a liberal arts-

oriented university. In addition, in the studies of Hamrick, Schuh, and Shelley (2004) and Kuh

and Hu (2001), the subject of foundation (national or private), region, or level of urbanization

were chosen as the main variables to analyze the relationship between the university’s

characteristics and the students’ achievements. The main survey aimed to test the difference of

values by functional attributes, which are research-oriented and education-oriented, as well as by

the subject of foundation, such as national and private. The hypotheses were as follows.

Hypothesis ⑴ There will be a difference in WTP between research-oriented universities and

education-oriented universities.

Hypothesis ⑵ There will be a difference in WTP between national universities and private

universities.

▪The difference of university library value by user characteristics

9

As a result of the preliminary survey, the WTP of professors and students for the same service

differed heavily. At P University, the WTP for lending one book was ₩7,317 for professors on

average and ₩664 for students, which was a difference of 10 times, and the 5%-trimmed

average also showed a difference that was 2 times greater (₩1,366.0 for professors and ₩551.3

for students). These findings indicated that there was a great deal of difference in WTP according

to user status. Moreover, the main survey aimed to test whether the position and major of users

affected the value statement of libraries based on differences that appeared in the usage pattern

analysis in the preliminary survey. The hypotheses were as follows:

Hypothesis ⑶ There will be a difference in WTP between students and professors.

Hypothesis ⑷ There will be a difference in WTP by major.

▪The difference of value according to the existence of a payment card

As a result of the preliminary survey, P University’s WTP (where a payment card was proposed)

regarding electronic scholarly information differed 3 times compared to that of Q University on

average. However, the 2 questionnaires carried out in the preliminary survey process had

different structures. Therefore the main survey process aimed to examine if the difference shown

was influenced by the availability of a payment card by surveying the same conditions.

Hypothesis ⑸ There will be a difference in WTP between cases where a payment card is

presented and where a payment card is not presented.

4. Main Survey

4.1 Measurement Method

The main survey applied CVM to measure the various services of university libraries. The

questionnaire survey was carried out face-to-face by researchers participating in the main survey

at the respective university’s library lobby and campus for 2 months from October through

November 2011.

Regarding the diversity of services provided by university libraries, the survey categorized the

measured service targets as lending services, reference services, electronic scholarly

information services, user education sessions, and facility provisions, and it allowed the

respondent to state the WTP value for each service. Therefore, the survey used a simple

assumption, “If you set the service you are using now to a monetary value,” instead of an

imaginary situation.

The statement form of WTP was designed to be open-ended. If the questions about the 5

services had been multiple choice, the questions would have been too complicated and the users

might have felt uncomfortable stating the value or may have even refused to answer.

The statement unit of value was minimized to 1 book, once, and 1 case. In the case of the

electronic scholarly information service, the number of downloads was regarded as the criteria

10

instead of the number of search cases. For the selection of a survey target, the study used data

of Rinfo (scholarly information statistics system) provided by the Korea Education and Research

Information Service (Korea Education and Research Information Service, 2012). After sorting the

universities by operator and core mission with the help of the data, the survey selected 4

universities capable of cooperating with the questionnaire survey for professors, graduate

students, and undergraduates (Figure 1):

–Private, research-oriented university (over 10,000 enrolled students)

– National, research-oriented university (over 10,000 enrolled students)

– Private, education-oriented university (5,000-10,000 enrolled students)

– National, education-oriented university (5,000-10,000 enrolled students)

<Figure 1> Target libraries and methodology of the main survey

Questionnaires collected from the 4 universities that were analyzed totaled 758 and consisted of

63% undergraduates, 18% graduate students, 15% professors, and 4% other users. We

investigated the ratio of majors at the target universities and found that the actual representations

of survey respondents’ majors were 45% humanities and social sciences, 40% natural sciences

and engineering, 8% college of education, 4% medical sciences, and 3% in college of arts/sports

and education.

4.2 WTP regarding University Library Services

⑴ WTP by Service

11

The WTP values for the main services of 4 university libraries (lending services,

international/domestic journal use, reference services, user education, and reading room use)

are shown in Table 9 and Figure 2.

<Table 9> WTP for university library services

Book

lending Int.

journal Dom.

journal Reference services

User education

Reading room

N 743 733 733 730 711 722

Mean 957.07 1424.30 976.81 533.01 2609.46 894.99

5%-trimmed avg.

716.39 1080.43 764.06 308.67 1742.18 697.57

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

<Figure 2> WTP regarding university library services (average value)

The average WTP value for one book-lending service was about ₩957; one international journal

article was ₩1,424, and one domestic journal article was ₩976, which makes the value of the

international journal article one and a half times higher than that of a domestic journal article. The

WTP for reference services was about ₩533, while the value of a single user education session

was about ₩2,609, making it the highest value. The fact that the WTP value for a user education

session came out higher than that of lending and reference services means that the respondents’

perceptible service value for user education was high, and it could be grounds for the

implementation of various user education programs that are increasing in most libraries now.

⑵ WTP by Status and Major

Undergraduates were willing to pay the most for user education (₩1,948) and the lowest for

reference services (₩369). Graduate students were also willing to pay the highest for user

education and the lowest for reference services, but the WTP appeared to be slightly higher than

957.07

1424.3

976.81

533.01

2609.46

894.99

book

lending

domestic

journal

int'l journal reference

service

user

education

reading

room

12

that of undergraduates. The average WTP value reported by professors for university library

services was higher than that of both undergraduates and graduate students, which makes the

WTP value for user education the highest (₩5,915) and that for international journals second

(₩2,327). For most services, the average WTP value differed between professors and students,

but the WTP value for using a reading room did not differ much (₩965 for professors and ₩970

for graduate students; Table 10, Figure 3).

<Table 10> WTP for university library service by status

Service type Status

Book lending

Int. journal Dom.


User education

Reading room

Undergrad.

Mean 815.28 1144.68 938.51 369.39 1948.27 877.95

N 470 464 465 465 454 463

5%-trimmed avg.

645.54 956.73 770.99 243.05 1402.38 693.64

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

Grad.

Mean 922.08 1381.18 755.20 517.64 2438.52 970.79

N 130 127 127 127 122 126

5%-trimmed avg.

742.48 1038.15 570.52 324.06 1789.62 749.29

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

Prof.

Mean 1620.75 2327.62 1121.83 1355.94 5915.15 965.10

N 106 105 104 101 99 96

5%-trimmed avg.

1103.77 1819.05 861.86 951.05 3216.61 697.34

Median 1000.00 1000.00 500.00 500.00 1000.00 500.00

<Figure 3> WTP for university library service by status (average value)

1620.75

2327.62

1121.83 1355.94

5915.15

965.1

book

lending

domestic

journal


service

user

education

reading

room

under-grad.

grad.

prof.

13

In regards to the average WTP value by major, Humanities and Social Science majors were each

willing to pay relatively more for services: ~₩1,127 and ~₩1,162 for book-lending services,

respectively. For international journal article usage, Arts/Sports and Social Science majors were

willing to pay ~₩2,029 and ~₩1,808, respectively. Arts/Sports majors showed the highest WTP

value for user education sessions, which was ₩3,505, and Social Science and Engineering were

next, reporting ₩2,790 and ₩2,753, respectively (Table 11, Figures 4 and 5).

<Table 11> WTP for university library services by major

Service type Major

Book lending

Int. journal Dom.


User education

Reading room

Humanities

Mean 1127.13 1488.28 935.05 527.72 2052.80 894.95

N 94 93 93 92 93 91

5%-trimmed avg.

715.40 1103.80 715.60 301.90 1628.50 635.10

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 150.00 1000.00 500.00

Social science

Mean 1162.58 1808.28 1145.21 731.81 2790.88 1047.62

N 240 238 238 237 228 235

5%-trimmed avg.

819.20 1326.50 951.10 377.60 2179.50 832.30

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 200.00 1000.00 500.00

Natural Science

Mean 936.86 1202.24 899.38 409.08 2852.85 1008.02

N 121 121 120 119 113 116

5%-trimmed avg.

738.30 1018.20 830.10 312.60 1271.00 776.60

Median 500.00 1000.00 1000.00 200.00 1000.00 500.00

Engineering

Mean 702.70 954.42 681.92 426.15 2753.90 681.18

N 174 172 173 171 167 169

5%-trimmed avg.

569.80 739.10 542.00 232.50 1480.10 529.60

Median 500.00 500.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

Medicine

Mean 963.64 1336.36 1070.30 501.82 1793.94 940.91

N 33 33 33 33 33 33

5%-trimmed avg.

792.90 1036.50 911.00 367.30 1437.70 767.70

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 200.00 500.00 500.00

Arts/Sports

Mean 694.74 2029.41 1823.53 479.44 3605.56 555.56

N 19 17 17 18 18 18

5%-trimmed avg.

689.50 1671.60 1465.00 181.70 2248.40 586.90

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

Education

Mean 713.11 1482.78 1090.71 344.27 1926.21 736.46

N 61 58 58 59 58 59

5%-trimmed avg.

593.60 1008.80 777.00 213.70 1329.80 590.50

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

14

<Figure 4> WTP for university library service by major (average value)

<Figure 5> WTP for university library services by major, service (average value)

⑶ WTP by University's Core Mission

WTP values for university library services by university are shown in Table 12. For B University,

a national, research-oriented university, the average WTP values for lending services, reference

services, user education sessions, and reading room usage were ₩1,113, ₩623, ₩3,190, and

₩1,110, respectively, making their WTP values the highest of the 4 universities. C University, a

694.74

2029.41 1823.53

479.44

3605.56

555.56

book

lending

domestic

journal

int'l

journal

reference

service

user

education

reading

room

Humanities

Social scinece

Natural science

Engineering

Medicine

Art/ Physical

Education

2052.80

2790.88 2852.85 2753.90

1793.94

3605.56

1926.21

book lending

domestic journal

int'l journal

reference service

user education

reading room

15

national, education-oriented university, had average WTP values for international and domestic

journal article usage of ₩1,735 and ₩1,216, respectively, making them the highest.

In comparison, A and D Universities, which are private universities, had WTP values lower than

the two national universities across all services. A University, a private, research-oriented

university, had the lowest average WTP values for reference services and user education. It can

be assumed that the differences of core missions and subjects of foundation of each university

were reflected in the results because WTP values for services differed by university; national

universities’ WTP values were higher than those of private universities.

<Table 12> Service value of the university library by university

University Book

lending Int.

journal Dom.


User education

Reading room

A

(priv./ res.)

Mean 806.45 1494.30 944.77 429.71 2092.02 770.00

N 186 184 185 182 174 181

5%-trimmed avg.

617.68 1110.82 690.88 274.77 1481.55 770.00

Median 500.00 725.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

B

(nat./ res.)

Mean 1113.18 1330.51 870.41 623.03 3190.46 1110.00

N 198 197 197 198 196 198

5%-trimmed avg.

818.75 1014.44 732.77 330.56 1855.61 815.21

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

C

(nat./ edu.)

Mean 995.98 1735.03 1216.81 566.89 2967.13 858.53

N 194 189 188 189 184 183

5%-trimmed avg.

716.61 1238.51 938.30 335.73 1956.23 665.82

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

D

(priv./ edu.)

Mean 893.76 1098.34 864.94 499.29 2038.41 812.00

N 165 163 163 161 157 160

5%-trimmed avg.

754.46 985.4 778.31 326.33 1638.57 673.06

Median 500.00 1000.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 500.00

16

<Figure 6> Service value of the university library by each university (average value)

5. Hypothesis test

Using the T-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), this study tested whether there were

statistical differences in the WTP values according to the characteristics of the university, the

characteristics of the user, and whether a payment card was presented.

5.1 The Difference in WTP Value by University Characteristics

Hypothesis ⑴ There will be a difference in WTP values between research-oriented

universities and education-oriented universities.

Hypothesis ⑵ There will be a difference in WTP values between national universities and

private universities.

Hypotheses (1) and (2) were developed to test whether there were differences in WTP values

according to characteristics of function and foundation subjects. However, based on the results

of the analysis, no statistical difference was identified between research-oriented and education-

oriented universities; therefore, Hypothesis (1), which tested the difference by functional

characteristics, was rejected (Table 13).

<Table 13> T-test on WTP value difference by the university’s functional characteristics

N Mean

Standard deviation

T P

Book Research-oriented 384 964.61 1688.433 0.131 .896

1113.18 1330.51

870.41 623.03

3190.46

1110

book

lending

domestic

journal


service

user

education

reading

room

A

B

C

D

17

lending Education-oriented 359 949.00 1552.322

International journal

Research-oriented 381 1409.61 2154.323 -0.189 .850

Education-oriented 352 1440.20 2234.322

Domestic journal



Reference services



User education

Research-oriented 370 2673.89 7255.551 0.259 .796


Reading room

Research-oriented 379 947.63 1405.105 1.131 .259


The T-test results for WTP values for library services of national and private universities by

foundation subject are summarized in Table 14. Users’ WTP for the five total services (journal

usage was separated into domestic and international) showed no statistical differences between

national and private institutions except for library user education and reading room service.

Therefore, Hypothesis (2) was partially adopted.

<Table 14> T-test on the WTP value difference by the university’s subject of foundation

N Mean

Standard deviation

T P

Book lending

National 392 1055.18 1808.711 1.769 .077

Private 351 847.49 1380.951


National 386 1528.58 2493.612 1.359 .174

Private 347 1308.30 1793.710

Domestic journal

National 385 1039.56 1448.565 1.321 .187

Private 348 907.38 1239.343

Reference service

National 387 595.61 1495.425 1.448 .148

Private 343 462.37 960.509

User education

National 380 3082.32 8827.397 2.060 .040*

Private 331 2066.59 3544.079

Reading room

National 381 989.22 1536.815 2.040 .042*

Private 341 789.71 1003.276

* p<0.05

5.2 The Difference in WTP Value by User Characteristics

In regards to user characteristics, 2 hypotheses were proposed based on the user’s status and

major field.

18

Hypothesis ⑶ There will be a difference in WTP between students and professors

Examining the difference in WTP value by status, professors showed higher WTP values than

students (undergraduate, graduate students) throughout all services except for domestic journal

and reading room usage. Therefore, Hypothesis (3) was also partially adopted.

<Table 15> ANOVA on WTP value difference by status

N Mean F P

Post-hoc analysis (Scheffe test) result

Book lending

Prof. 106 1620.75

10.981 0.000*** prof > undergrad >

grad Grad. 130 922.08

Undergrad. 470 815.28


Prof. 105 2327.62

15.146 0.000*** prof > undergrad >

grad Grad. 127 1381.18


Domestic journal

Prof. 104 1121.83

2.430 0.089 no difference

{prof, grad, undergrad} Grad. 127 755.2


Reference service

Prof. 101 1355.94

25.740 0.000*** prof > undergrad >

grad Grad. 127 517.64


User education

Prof. 99 5915.15

13.393 0.000*** prof > undergrad >

grad Grad. 122 2438.52


Reading room

Prof. 96 965.10


{prof, grad, undergrad} Grad. 126 970.79


** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Hypothesis ⑷ There will be a difference in WTP by major

An ANOVA was carried out to see if there were any statistical differences in WTP values for each

service by the users’ major field, and the results are summarized in Table 16. WTP values

regarding only the electronic scholarly information service, such as international and domestic

journals, showed differences between the groups. However, according to the Scheffe test’s post-

hoc analysis, WTP values only had a meaningful difference for international journals between

users of social science and engineering. There was no difference among user groups on

domestic journal usage in post-hoc analysis. Therefore, except for partial services, a user’s major

did not affect the WTP value. Hypothesis (4) was partially adopted.

<Table 16> ANOVA on average WTP value by major

N Mean F P

Post-hoc analysis (Scheffe test)

result

Book lending

Humanities 94 1127.13

1.852 0.086 no difference Social Science 240 1162.58

Natural 121 936.86

19

Science

Engineering 174 702.70

Medicine 33 963.64

Arts/Sports 19 694.74

Education 61 713.11

International

journal


3.033 0.006

** social science >

engineering

Social Science 238 1808.28

Natural Science

121 1202.24


Medicine 33 1336.36


Education 58 1482.78

Domestic journal


3.322 0.003

** no difference


Natural Science

120 899.38


Medicine 33 1070.30



Reference service




Natural Science

119 409.08


Medicine 33 501.82


Education 59 344.27

User education


.394 0.883 no difference


Natural Science

113 2852.85


Medicine 33 1793.94



Reading room




Natural Science

116 1008.02


Medicine 33 940.91


Education 59 736.46

** p<0.01

After dividing the users by status into professor, graduate student, and undergraduate,

undergraduates and professors showed no difference by major, but graduate students had a

difference in WTP value by major about book lending and reference services at the 0.05 level of

significance. Upon post-hoc analysis, the book lending WTP values of humanities graduate

students were higher than those of engineering students. There was no difference in rank among

the groups regarding reading room usage by post-hoc analysis.

20

5.3 Difference in WTP by Whether Payment Card is Presented

Hypothesis ⑸ There will be a difference in WTP values between cases where a payment

card is presented and where it is not.

The goal of Hypothesis (5) was to examine the change in WTP value that comes from the

difference in the CVM’s questionnaire plan. The existence of a payment card, which plays a role

as a reference when stating WTP, was turned into a variable. When conducting the survey, the

investigators asked questions that included a payment card and ones that did not, each taking up

about half of the survey questions. Therefore, there were no differences between the two

questionnaires except for the existence of a payment card. According to the analysis results,

similar value prices appeared irrespective of the payment card’s existence, and Hypothesis (5)

was rejected.

<Table 17> Test on mean difference by “whether there is a payment card”

N Mean

Standard Deviation

T P

Book lending

Payment Card O 368 951.44 1270.239 -0.094 0.926

Payment Card X 375 962.59 1908.605


Payment Card O 363 1337.47 1938.413 -1.063 0.288

Payment Card X 370 1509.49 2414.071

Domestic journal

Payment Card O 363 940.12 1188.057 -0.726 0.468

Payment Card X 370 1012.80 1499.787

Reference service

Payment Card O 362 475.22 1142.633 -1.216 0.224

Payment Card X 368 589.85 1389.173

User education

Payment Card O 351 2649.52 6904.717 0.153 0.879

Payment Card X 360 2570.40 6916.307

Reading room

Payment Card O 361 934.40 1314.779 0.805 0.421

Payment Card X 361 855.57 1315.974

6. Discussion

This study claimed to measure a university library’s service value with CVM and grasp the factors

that affect the value and the level of value. In regards to the process and the result of

measurement, the subjects to be considered and discussed later are as follows:

First, WTP values for user education had the highest price among book lending, international

journals, domestic journals, reference services, user education sessions, and reading room use.

The users of this service seemed to have marked the WTP from a “learner’s” point of view by

regarding the service as a lecture where the users invest their time and acquire new knowledge.

21

International journal downloads had the second highest WTP, which reflects the essential role of

a university library in supporting research and study by providing scholarly information.

Second, owing to the structure of this study, respondents were likely to feel pressure or reject

stating the value at all if the questions about the 5 services had been multiple choice or

complicated. As such, the study measured the value using open-ended questions. The total

range of WTP values was very broad, and it caused hardships in the calculation of reliable

values. In addition to the mean, which is typically used, the study presented various value prices,

such as the median, 5%-trimmed average, etc.

The users’ WTP values regarding university library services measured in this study were

determined personally by individual users about the values of particular services. Deducted WTP

was complexly affected not only by a user’s individual experience of using library services but

also by the characteristics of the institute the user belongs to, personal characteristics of the user,

situational attributes, and the composition of the questionnaire. At the present time, few studies

have detailed how to measure service value, and systematic analyses on factors that affect WTP

are scarce. Therefore, this study deducted the characteristics of the university providing the

service, the characteristics of the user, and characteristics related to survey composition as

potential reasons that might influence WTP values of users, and selected and tested hypotheses

to see if these characteristics actually affect WTP.

The analysis results of WTP differences by hypotheses were university characteristics, user

characteristics, and survey composition.

First, among the 5 causes set up through the preliminary survey and literature review, the cause

that showed a statistically significant effect on WTP values of surveyed university library users

was the status of the user. It has been reported that there are differences in most service areas

based on the user’s status, such as a student or professor. The general environment of university

library-university characteristics (education or research-oriented, private or national), a user’s

major, and the survey composition (existence of payment card) did not produce a difference in

WTP by and large.

Second, it is easy to understand that professors’ WTP level would turn out higher than that of

students. However, it is difficult to conclude that the service value that professors experience is

higher than that of undergraduates or graduate students. The high WTP of the professor group

may show a relative value about services, but it could also reflect the economic level between

the professor group and the student group. A substantially high WTP was observed in the

professor group’s data, although it was a minority. In the case of very high WTP values, which

are regarded as an ideal point, it can be said that these high values reflect a relatively high

service value rather than the economic position of the particular user. There almost never were

very high WTP values in the student group. Therefore, users’ WTP values were affected by a

complex combination of individual economic level and experienced level of services. A

measurement method that can distinguish these differences will need to be developed.

Third, even though there were no statistically significant results, additional research of the

characteristics included in this study (university, user’s major, the existence of a payment card) is

still necessary. To achieve more valid WTP values, this study contacted individual users through

face-to-face surveys and limited the target institute of research to 4 universities. Therefore, the

22

results of our hypothesis tests should be considered provisional. If related data are collected and

analyzed in different situations at other times, clearer results regarding the research questions of

this study sought may be achieved.

7. Conclusion

Recently, the value of a university library has become a key measure of the actual performance

of a university. The value of a university library assesses the contribution made by library

services with various properties to the success of professors and students through the subjective

judgment of users who actually benefit from these services. The intangible character of value and

the subjectivity of value judgment are the main reasons that value measurements are difficult to

carry out; therefore, a university library’s value should be investigated and in-depth research on

measurement methods should be conducted to draw better conclusions regarding this topic.

CVM, which is usually applied in the public sector and to public libraries, has the advantage of

being able to measure usefulness and nonuse values most directly, but few advanced research

studies on value measurement of the entire service offerings of a university library with the help

of CVM have been published domestically or internationally. The main reason for this lack of

studies is that basic discussion to investigate a university library’s value has only just started, and

information regarding the best methodology for measuring the value of library services of

universities that have various characteristics is still in its infancy.

In this context, the value measurement performed in this study was significant in that this study

was an experimental measurement study that applied a single measurement method, CVM, to

various services. Moreover, it was meaningful that the study tried a methodical explanation by

testing hypotheses on various factors that affect WTP, a value of service authorized by users. In

the hypothesis test, WTP differed according to the users’ status (who the user is) as well as by

characteristics of the institution, and the survey method did not influence the WTP distinctively. In

various information service environments (including a university library), a continuous study

should be carried out to measure the level of service that the user actually experiences through

the users’ subjective value judgment and on the factors that affect their value judgment. Through

this effort, studies would be able to collect and utilize data that people directly or indirectly

concerned with library studies can depend on for the value of library services.

References

Abels, E. G. 1997. Improving reference service cost studies. Library and Information Science

Research, 19(2): 135-152.

Cable, L. G. 1980. Cost analysis of reference service to outside users. Bulletin of the Medical

Library Association, 68(2): 247.

Donovan, J. M. 1996. Do Librarians Deserve Tenure? Casting an Anthropological Eye on Role

Definition within the Law School. Law Library Journal, 88(3): 382-401.

Hamrick, F. A., Schuh, J. H. & Shelley, M. C. 2004. Predicting higher education graduation rates

from institutional characteristics and resources allocation. Education Policy Analysis

Archives.12(19). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/174

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/174

23

Jager, K. 2002. Successful Students: Does the Library Make a Difference? Performance

Measurement and Metrics, 3(3): 140-144.

Kantor, P. B. 1986. Three studies of the economics of academic libraries. Advances in Library

Administration and Organization, 5 : 221-286.

Kantor, P. B., Saracevic, T. & D'Esposito-Wachtmann, J. 1995. Studying the cost and value of

library services. Final Report New Brunswick, NJ: School of Communication, Information

and Librayr Studies, Rutgers University. Technical report APLAB/94-3. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/2820469/Studying_the_cost_and_value_of_library_services_fin

al_report

King, D. W., Aerni, S., Brody, F., Herbison, M., & Knapp, A. 2004.The Use and Outcomes of

University Library Print and Electronic Collections.The Sara Fine Institute for

Interpersonal Behavior and Technology. Retrieved from

http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/research/pitts/Pitt_Use_Final.pdf

Korea Education and Research Information Service. 2012. Research Information Statistics.

Retreived from http://www.rinfo.kr/.

Kuh, G. D. & Hu, S. 2001. Learning productivity at research universities. The Journal of Higher

Education. 72(1): 1-28.

Luther, J. 2008. University Investment in the Library: What's the Return? A Case Study at the

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.183.1882&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Matthews, J. R. 2007. Library Assessment in Higher Education. London: Libraries Unlimited.

Melo, L. B., & Pires C. P. 2011. Measuring the economic value of the electronic scientific

information services in Portuguese academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and

Information Science. 43(3): 146-156.

Munde, G. & Marks, K. 2009.Surviving the Future: Academic Libraries, Quality, and Assessment.

London: Chando Pub.

Noonan, D. S. 2003. Contingent valuation and cultural reseources: a meta-analysis review of the

literature. Journal of Cultural Economics. 27: 159-176.

Oakleaf, M. 2010. Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report.

Chicago: ACRL. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf

Online Computer Library Center. 2005. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A

Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC.

Research Information Network & Research Libraries UK. 2011. The Value of Libraries for

Research and Researchers. London: Research Information Network. Retrieved from

http://www.rluk.ac.uk/content/value-libraries-research-and-researchers.

Saracevic, T. & Kantor, P. B. 1997.Studying the value of library and information services. Part II.

Methodology and taxonomy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,

48(6), 543-563.

Tenopir, C. et al. 2010. University investment in the library: An international study of the library's

value to the grants process. Library Connect White Paper II. Retrieved from

http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/2010-06-whitepaper-roi2_0.pdf

Tenopir, C. & King, D. W. 2007. Perceptions of Value and Value Beyond Perceptions: Measuring

the Quality and Value of Journal Article Readings. Serials, 20(3): 199-207.

Whitmire, E. 2002. Academic Library Performance Measures and Undergraduates' Library Use

and Educational Outcomes. Library and Information Science Research, 24(2): 107-128.

Wong, S. R. & Webb, T. D. 2011. Uncovering Meaningful Correlation between Student Academic

Performance and Library Material Usage. College & Research Libraries, July: 361-370.

http://www.academia.edu/2820469/Studying_the_cost_and_value_of_library_services_final_report

http://www.academia.edu/2820469/Studying_the_cost_and_value_of_library_services_final_report

http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/research/pitts/Pitt_Use_Final.pdf

http://www.rinfo.kr/

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.183.1882&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf

http://www.rluk.ac.uk/content/value-libraries-research-and-researchers

http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/2010-06-whitepaper-roi2_0.pdf

Documents

Factors Affecting Users' Assessment of the Economic Value