Online First

International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology - Vol. 8 , No. 1
[Paper List] [Go to Volume List]

[ Article ]
International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology - Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 51-77
ISSN: 2234-0068 (Print) 2287-187X (Online)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2018
Received 23 Jan 2018 Revised 04 Mar 2018 Accepted 06 Mar 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2018.8.1.051

Evaluation Indicators for Green Libraries and Library Eco-friendliness
Younghee Noh* ; In-Ja Ahn**
*Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Konkuk University, Korea (irs4u@kku.ac.kr)
**Associate Professor, Department of Library & Children Services, Tongwon University, Korea (ijahn@tw.ac.kr)

Abstract

This study aimed to determine eco-friendly factors on the aspects of library service, materials provided or handled by the library, and programs including educational programs. Furthermore, it was setup to perform a trial evaluation for the eco-friendliness of the library based on the determined evaluation standards by this study. Results are as follows; First, regarding the question of ‘Do employees of the library think that establishment of green libraries is necessary?’, the employees of the libraries responded yes by 65.52%, but only 4.6% responded that it would not be necessary. Second, in analyzing the most important evaluation areas of green libraries according to the opinions of the libraries’ employees, they were ranked in order: the indoor environment, energy and prevention of environmental pollution, and material and resource areas. Third, 11 areas were determined to evaluate the level of greening in the libraries; the highest averages were scored 510 for the area of energy and prevention of environmental pollution, 415 for the area of library resource, and 320 for the area of indoor environment. Last, the libraries were graded based on actual data according to the results to measure the level of greening, two libraries were graded as Diamond, the highest grade, accounting for 15.39% of all libraries; Gold and Silver grades accounted for another 15.39%, together five Certified graded libraries accounted for 38.46%, which was the highest rate among the libraries. Any library scoring less than 20% when compared to the full score was graded as Non-certified, and one library, which scored 15.06% fell into this category. The results of this study set up to serve as basic data for the direction of development for green libraries in our country, as well as reference for the employees of libraries in constructing or remodeling library buildings, establishing service infrastructure, providing information service, and planning library duties in an eco-friendly way.

Keywords: Green Library, Evaluation Indicators, Evaluation for Eco-friendliness, Eco-friendly Libraries, Level of Greening, Eco-friendly Factors
1. Introduction

We define eco-friendliness as having little to no damaging or polluting effects on the natural environment. An eco-friendly green library is a structure that is designed, constructed, renovated, operated, and reused in an ecological and resource-efficient way (Cal Recycle, 2000). Therefore, construction of green library buildings should be a priority, as well as other eco-friendly aspects such as printed materials, non-book materials, library operations, and library service (Ahn, Kwak, & Noh, 2013).

Though there are a variety of methods for building green libraries, all essentially include the minimization of negative effects and maximization of positive effects on local environments. As a rule, they contain things like the maximal use of natural or renewable resources, reduced use of water and energy, integration of actual shade from trees and vegetation when designing the library buildings and sites, the use of drought-resistant Native Plants, and attention to sustaining a high standard of indoor air quality for improving library user health.

In reviewing research papers by several authorities and identifying cases of green libraries in foreign countries and directions for their development, the findings suggest that to establish eco-friendly libraries there is a need to increase the amount of digital materials over printed ones, expand access to information through the internet, reduce user visits to the library, and find new and more effective ways to save energy. However, it was difficult to find eco-friendly examples of libraries with these features domestically. All of the certified green libraries by the G-SEED system focused on architectural elements without consideration of green services or programs.

The idea of making an eco-friendly library is not a brand-new concept. Existing libraries have already been attempting to develop a higher level of environmental friendliness. Some libraries did feature eco-friendly components even if they did not embrace the full definition of eco-friendly or green libraries by foreign standards. For instance, OPAC use in libraries was considered eco-friendly by replacing paper lists with online lists to save natural resources and to help users search and borrow materials. It also helped reduce the amount of physical activity necessary within the library, which saved energy. Furthermore, OPAC use is often predicated by the library providing a website linking content and information.

This study investigated the eco-friendly elements of the library by analyzing domestic and foreign literature and examples. Based on the investigation, indicators for eco-friendly libraries were developed to certify libraries as green and eco-friendly. The current domestic and foreign indicators to evaluate the eco-friendliness of libraries were limited to standards of construction, and they did not assess the eco-friendliness of the services, materials, and programs provided by green libraries. Miller (2010) suggested indicators such as the service factor, material factor, and education factor to evaluate the eco-friendliness of libraries. In other words, the study implied that the construction factor was not sufficient to evaluate the eco-friendliness of libraries. Thus, this study aimed to determine eco-friendly factors in the aspects of library service, materials provided or handled by the library, and programs including educational programs. Furthermore, it was setup to perform a trial evaluation for the eco-friendliness of the library based on the determined evaluation standards. The results of this study will serve as basic data for the direction of development for green libraries in our country, as well as a reference for the employees of libraries in constructing or remodeling library buildings, establishing service infrastructure, providing information service, and planning library duties in an eco-friendly way. Furthermore, while recently a number of libraries were eco-friendly certified, the previous evaluations only reflected the architectural aspects without taking into consideration the other characteristics of the libraries. The evaluation indicators for eco-friendly green libraries that were developed in this study based on the features of libraries should evaluate the eco-friendliness of the libraries with more accuracy.

2. Literature review

Scanty previous research has been performed in relation to the subject of green libraries, which implies a low interest of researchers in this topic. In analyzing the prior research, topic trends were divided by domestic and foreign. In addition, as this study set out to develop specific evaluation items for certifying a green library, research related to the certification standards for green library buildings were reviewed.

First, as to the foreign studies on the green library, Brown (2003) referred to the LEED certification system but additionally included cooperation, natural light, and natural air ventilation as essential elements of the green library. In other words, the study considered such things as cooperative support of local communities, lighting with natural sunshine, and installation of windows in the space for a bookshelf to remove dust and odor in the building and circulate the air. A researcher discussed characteristics of the Hillsdale green library located in Oregon State based on the LEED certification system (Mikkelsen, 2007).

Schaper (2007) focused on examples of operating green libraries and argued the necessity of constructing green libraries, introducing examples such as how to use toilet seats and the installation of a parking lot for bicycles and eco-friendly cars. Some researchers presented websites related to green libraries to quickly raise awareness of the green library. Pinkowski (2007) suggested a website containing some information on green libraries, and Jankowska (2008) presented a website including related information and examples of them. Jankowska (2012) summarized several activities performed for sustainable development from 1989 to 2011. In addition, Zhu, Lin, and Yuan (2010) introduced Shandong Transportation College Library, located in China, as an example of a green library.

Antonelli (2008) mentioned the necessity of constructing green libraries and introduced some programs provided by green libraries in local communities, and Schaper (2010) proposed strategies for building green libraries. The research often either suggested the necessity of establishing green libraries or introducing some examples intended to prove the effect of green libraries. In particular, Schaper (2003) addressed the effect of green libraries with a specific example that satisfied the standard of a sustainable place by improving traffic flow to the building and utilizing water resources effectively. Neal (2008) described the effects of saving paper, computers, and lighting in operating the green library, which were being over-consumed by existing libraries.

Domestically in Korea, initial research on green libraries was performed in 2012 (Ahn et al., 2012); it investigated 50 libraries that were certified by the evaluation system for green libraries. This study was based on six specific evaluation items of the LEED certification system: an eco-friendly construction site, the effectiveness of utilizing water resources, energy and atmosphere, material and resources, the eco-friendliness of the indoor environment, and an eco-friendly interior design. The researchers insisted that the certification system focuses only on the architectural aspects rather than reflecting more aspects of eco-friendliness. The study implied that studies into a deeper level of eco-friendliness should be performed with consideration of such categories as services, contents, and supplies of the library. Further research was performed to analyze the directions and contents of the literature regarding green libraries and to suggest a direction of future studies (Ahn, Kwak, & Noh, 2013). This study proposed that future studies on green libraries consider the number of libraries that should be constructed in the region, their location, and such things as the space between the bookshelves, volume of materials for the collection in the stacks, and the users.

Meanwhile, a study on the status of green libraries, which investigated librarians’ awareness of the green library, including the necessity for a green library, was performed for the first time (Hong & Noh, 2014). This study showed that library employees were not as aware of green libraries and the certification system necessary to qualify for this designation but were interested in the concept and appreciated its necessity. Furthermore, according to the survey results, library employees rated prevention of environmental pollution as the most important G-SEED assessor, followed by energy, ecological environment, and interior environment.

A review of the previous literature in foreign countries finds that the research was actively performed by practicing librarians and researchers. However, the domestic research on eco-friendly libraries was begun in earnest around 2012 by a few researchers. While some foreign examples were found for benchmarking in other libraries, domestic examples were hardly investigated; moreover the libraries certified as green libraries tended to be based on the architectural aspects. The specific evaluation items did not include other relevant features of the library.

3. Research Design and Methodology
3.1 Step 1.1: The process of determining specific evaluation items for green libraries

To evaluate the eco-friendliness of a library, this study collected related previous research and materials to determine specific evaluation items. As a result of investigating the materials, the specific evaluation items to measure the eco-friendliness of library buildings were already developed, applied, and utilized. However, research or indicators to evaluate the eco-friendliness of such things as library materials, services, and resources were never performed or developed. Moreover, the evaluation items of the eco-friendliness of library buildings were applied also to commercial buildings and other institutional buildings, but the items were hardly specific to the features of library buildings.

Thus, this study intended to develop indicators for eco-friendly libraries, considering the features of libraries, using the following processes: First, it collected examples of green libraries domestically and in foreign countries. It included 29 Korean, 39 American, 5 Canadian, 2 European, and 5 Asian green libraries. All examples were analyzed to determine elements of the green library.

Second, previous research papers and books related to the green library and environment were collected. Green elements were determined according to the researchers’ analysis of the preceding literature.

Third, all of the green elements that were determined by the processes above were listed to group the green elements by similar characteristics; each group was distinctively named.

Next, the specific evaluation items of green library buildings were finally determined along 11 evaluation areas: Land Use and Traffic, Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution, Materials and Resources, Water Circulation Management, Maintenance, Ecological Environment, Indoor Environment, Library Resources, Eco-friendly Education Programs and Campaigns, Employees and Operations, and Computerization. Regarding the number of evaluation indicators, the areas with the largest number of indicators were, in order: library resources with 31 indicators, energy and prevention of environmental pollution with 29 indicators, eco-friendly education programs and campaigns with 19 indicators, and the indoor environment with 17 indicators.

In deciding the specific evaluation items for certification of the library in this study, the architectural elements of the library were the same specific evaluation items of the certification system of other eco-friendly buildings. In addition, elements specific to the green library were identified and used.

3.2 Step 1.2: Verification of the green library evaluation indicators with survey

In developing the specific evaluation items for certifying green libraries in this study, specific evaluation items were finalized according to the results of a survey and the opinions of specialists The importance of each specific evaluation item in the architectural area of library buildings was targeted to the employees and librarians of the certified green libraries for preparation of the survey. The reason for limiting the target was that the librarians and employees of domestic libraries had less awareness of the green library. The number of certified green domestic libraries was 20 from 2005 to 2015. Five copies of each questionnaire were distributed to these libraries, and five librarians and staff responded to the questionnaire. As a result, 88 questionnaires were returned from 20 libraries and the recovery rate is 25%.

This study initially developed 11 evaluation areas, 31 specific evaluation items, and 144 evaluation indicators by converging the employees’ opinions of the libraries. As a result, 11 evaluation areas and 31 specific evaluation items scored over 3 points and only 9 items among 144 evaluation indicators scored under 3 points. Accordingly, excluding the items that scored under 3 points, it was composed of a total of 11 evaluation areas, 30 evaluation items, 69 sub-evaluation items, and 127 evaluation indicators. All of the specific evaluation items were awarded weighted values; in reflection of the weighted values, values of each full scale according to the standards were suggested.

Table 1. 
Verification of the green library evaluation indicators
Evaluation Area Evaluation Items Specific Evaluation Items Evaluation Standard
Content Full Score Content Full Score Content Full Score Content Full Score
1. Land Use and Traffic 95 1.1 Ecological Value 17.5 1.1.1 Ecological Value of Existing Land 17.5 Scored according to ecological value of existing land, land usage, and land use zone 17.5
1.2 Effect on Adjacent Land 17.5 1.2.1 Validity of Measures for Preventing Violation of a Right to Sunlight 17.5 Maximum angle of elevation in measuring height from the boundary line of the adjacent land due north to each side of the target building 17.5
1.3 Reduction of Traffic Load 60 1.3.1 Proximity to Public Transportation 20 Walking distance to the public transportation facilities 20
1.3.2 Facilities for Reducing Traffic 20 Built a bicycle shed 20
1.3.3 Distance between the City Center and a Library 20 Constructed a library building close to residential and commercial areas 20
2. Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution 510 2.1 Energy Saving 377.5 2.1.1 Facilities Controlled by Sensors 17.5 Installed automatic switching system in the stack room for infrequent visits 17.5
Utilized natural light with installation of lighting controlled by sensors 17.5
Utilized natural light with installation of blinds controlled by sensors 17.5
2.1.2 High-efficiency Air Conditioning/Heating Facilities and System 19.64 Installation of cooling/heating control system using reflection and influx of sunlight 20
Installed high-efficient air conditioner 20
Energy saving rate of using air conditioning/ heating system with geothermal heat 20
Provided solar energy for cooling/heating 20
Used construction materials for effective cooling/heating 20
Energy saving for air conditioning/heating system using influx and release of outside air 20
Installation of electric flash heater 17.5
2.1.3 Increased Efficiency of Cooling/Heating with green facilities 17.5 Reduced usage of energy for cooling/heating with green rooftop 17.5
2.1.4 Facilities for Reducing Heat Island Effect 17.5 Created environment for reducing heat island effect 17.5
Reduced heat island effect with green outdoor environment and landscaping 17.5
2.1.5 Utilization of Natural Light for Library Lighting 20 Utilized natural light energy with facilities using reflection and influx of natural light 20
Utilized natural light with appropriate arrangement of glass windows 20
Usage of facilities for influx of sunlight in the roof and ceiling 20
2.1.6 Use of Artificial lighting with high energy efficiency 20 Used fluorescent light with high energy efficiency 20
Used steel halide lamp with low voltage 20
2.1.7 Energy Saving for Landscape Management with Installation of Irrigation Facilities 17.5 Installed automatic irrigation facilities for landscape management and utilized rainwater for irrigation 17.5
Executed landscaping work for library buildings with native vegetation 17.5
2.2 Use of Sustainable Energy Sources 82.5 2.2.1 Use of New & Renewable Energy 16.5 Utilized solar energy generation for electricity in library buildings 20
Utilized hydrogen fuel cell for electricity 15
Utilized wind energy for electricity 15
Utilized geothermal power generation for electricity 17.5
Utilized bio-energy for electricity 15
2.3 Prevention of Global Warming 50 2.3.1 Reduced Emission of CO2 16.67 Reduced emission of CO2 in transportation using local materials 15
Applied a system for reducing the emission of CO2 17.5
Prohibited usage of a certain substance for protecting ozone layer 17.5
3. Materials and Resources 125 3.1 Resource Conservation 15 3.1.1 Reducing use of Bathroom Consumer Goods 15 Dry method of washing hands and face in bathrooms 15
3.2 Utilization of Sustainable Resources 110 3.2.1 Usage of Certified Eco-friendly Products for Effective Resource Recycling 17.5 Used certified eco-labelling products or GR-certified products 17.5
3.2.2 Sustainable Construction Materials 15 Used recycled materials in construction 15
Provided construction waste 15
3.2.3 Separate Collection of Recyclable Resources 16.25 Installed storage facilities for recycled waste and evaluated according to product types for separation 15
Installation of collection box for used batteries 17.5
3.2.4 Indoor Facilities of Libraries 15 Usage of materials obtained from library land site for the indoor facilities 15
3.2.5 Display of CO2 Emissions Score 15 Evaluated certification of displaying CO2 score for used materials 15
4. Water Circulation Management 140 4.1 Establishment of Water Circulation System 52.5 4.1.1 Validity of Measures for Reducing Rainwater Load 17.5 Utilized soil of green roof to prevent losses from rainwater 17.5
Installation of drain for rainwater 17.5
Selected a site with trees and forests 17.5
4.2 Water Conservation 87.5 4.2.1 Validity of Measures for Reducing Water for Daily Life 17.5 Evaluated application of certified eco-labelling products 17.5
4.2.2 Usage of Rainwater 17.5 Installed facilities utilizing rainwater for sprinkler system and landscaping according to standards of facilities using rainwater and of water quality in water reuse system 17.5
Utilized rainfall on the roof of library buildings as irrigation water for landscaping 17.5
Installation of sewage purification system 17.5
4.2.3 Installation of Water Reuse system 17.5 Established water reuse system for treating used tap water to use the treated water for sprinkler system and landscaping 17.5
5. Maintenance 52.5 5.1 Systematical Field Management 17.5 5.1.1 Rationality of Field Management Plan in Consideration of Environment 17.5 Acquisition of ISO14001 by construction company and level of acceptance for environment-first policies in establishing guidelines for field management 17.5
5.2 Effective Building Management 35 5.2.1 Validity of Management Documents for Operation/ Maintenance and Guidelines 17.5 Provided manual and guidelines for effective operation/maintenance of equipment/facility to the manager of building 17.5
5.2.2 Performance of TAB and Commissioning 17.5 Performance of TAB and commissioning 17.5
6. Ecological Environment 102.5 6.1 Construction of Green Area in the Land Site 17.5 6.1.1 Green Area Ratio of Natural Ground 17.5 Green area ratio of natural ground across the land site (Excluding artificial ground and green area on the top of building) 17.5
6.2 Acquiring Ecological Functions of Outside Area and Building Envelope 17.5 6.2.1 Ecological Area Ratio 17.5 Divided area types according to ecological values; sum of converted area after multiplying weighted values for each type of area and ratio of the total land site 17.5
6.3 Construction of Living Space for Plants 67.5 6.3.1 Construction of Biotope 16.88 Use of drought-resistant palaeovegetation in designing library buildings and cultivation of native plants in the green roof 15
Applied greening method for artificial environment (Green rooftop and green wall) 17.5
Linkage between the indoor library and ecological park 17.5
Utilized a variety of landscaping on site covered by asphalt for greening 17.5
7. Indoor Environment 320 7.1 Air Environment 142.5 7.1.1 Application of Products with Low-emission of Pollutants to Indoor Air 17.5 Strict application of standards for VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) and usage of materials with low diffusion rate of VOC 17.5
Usage of machines and filters with high efficiency for preventing emissions of pollutants 17.5
7.1.2 Acquisition of Natural Air Ventilation 18.33 Construction of arch-shaped structure for good ventilation 17.5
Installation of automatic air circulation system 20
Adjustment of glass windows using computer control system 17.5
7.1.3 Performance of Ventilation for Unit Household 17.5 Installation of high-tech ventilation system 17.5
Influx of outside air through CO2 monitoring 17.5
Installation of heat recovery ventilation system in the ceiling (Air circulation system) 17.5
7.2 Sound Environment 17.5 7.2.1 Indoor Noise Level with Traffic Noise (Road and Railroad) 17.5 Determination of indoor noise level according to predicting and measuring methods with compliance to｢Standards for Measuring the Noise Level in Apartment Houses｣(Notification of Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) (Unit: dB(A)) 17.5
7.3 Light Environment 40 7.3.1 Acquisition Rate of Daylight 20 Construction of library buildings with a southern exposure 20
Installed shade control system in the windows of library 20
7.4 Construction of Pleasant Indoor Environment 120 7.4.1 Construction of Resting and Refreshing Space 20 Construction of rest spaces for user resting and refreshment 20
7.4.2 Construction of Clean Indoor Environment 20 Installed indoor air purification system to reduce CO2 and ozone emissions and disinfect the air 20
Compliance to no-smoking policy for environmental preservation 20
7.4.3 Pleasantness of Indoor Environment in Construction and Remodeling of Library Buildings 20 Perfect block of ventilation opening before completion and cleaning before opening the library 20
Ventilating before opening the library 20
Processes of bake-out 20
8. Library Resources 415 8.1 Collection Management 65 8.1.1 Effective Preservation of Collection 15 Minimum preservation of the library collection 15
8.1.2 Proper Disposal of Materials 17.5 Proper disposal of materials 17.5
8.1.3 Active Use of Electronic Resources 16.25 Provision of library service by remote connection 17.5
Natural resource saving in utilization of e-book 15
8.2 Library Supplies 90 8.2.1 Eco-friendliness of Supplies Management 17.5 Isolation of chemicals and storage in ventilated room 17.5
8.2.2 Electronic Equipment 17.5 Preservation of natural resource using RFID and NFC chips 17.5
8.2.3 Use of Eco-friendly Fixtures 18.33
Use of certified green detergent and eco-friendly cleaner 17.5
Use of recyclable fixtures 20
Use of pencil made of recycled paper 17.5
8.3 Resource Conservation 225 8.3.1 Introduction of Resource Conservation System and Development of Eco-friendly Management 15 Reduction of the total number of printers in library 15
Introduction of copy management system based on internet network 15
8.3.2 Recycling Paper Resources 17.5 Use of recycled paper 17.5
Use of scrap paper and printing on both sides of paper 17.5
8.3.3 Recycling Library Furniture 15 Reuse of shelves of the existing building 15
Recycling of library furniture 15
8.3.4 Recycling Content-containing Media 16.25 Sending used non-book materials to recycling company 17.5
Recycling and donation of e-waste 15
8.3.5 Recycling Library Consumables 16.25 Recycling of packaging materials 17.5
Recycling of media consumables and recreation as a piece of art 15

3.3 Step 2: Evaluation of the Level of Eco-Friendliness in Libraries

In the second step, trial evaluation was performed for actual libraries based on the developed and verified evaluation indicators in the first step.

First, currently certified green libraries were the subject of evaluation according to 11 evaluation areas, 30 evaluation items, and 127 evaluation indicators. While a total of 20 libraries were certified as green libraries in Korea, 13 libraries among the 20 green libraries participated in the evaluation. Thus the participation rate for the evaluation of green libraries was 65%.

Second, five evaluation grades were developed to grade each library based on the evaluation scores of green libraries: Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Diamond. Regarding the distribution of the participating libraries, the differences between grades was in increments of 10%.

Third, based on the evaluation indicators for green libraries, the levels for the target libraries were analyzed along various aspects, and calculations were performed to determine the ratio of each item to the full scores of green libraries and scores of each library specifying its level of eco-friendliness.

Fourth, based on the scores of green libraries, each library was graded and the result was announced. Each library was notified of its evaluation grade and awarded a certificate.


Fig. 1. 
Research Stages and Contents for Developing and Assessing Evaluation Indicators for Green Libraries

3.4 Distribution of Scores According to the Evaluation Areas and Ratio

Based on the results of the research above regarding the distribution of scores and the ratios of the items according to the categories the highest areas were in order of the energy and prevention of environmental pollution with 23.42%, library resources with 19.06%, and indoor environment with 14.70%. The ratio in distribution of scores was the lowest in the area of maintenance with 2.41%.

Furthermore, the existing architectural items of eco-friendly buildings constituted 61.77% with seven items and items that reflected more of the library features constituted 38.23% with four items. Of course, the items of architectural elements contained specific evaluation items that reflected the features of the library environment. All areas together scored 2,177.5.

Table 2. 
Items in the Category of Evaluation Indicators for Green Library and Distribution of Scores by Each Item
Category of Evaluation Indicators Distribution of Scores Ratio
1. Land Use and Traffic 95 4.36%
2. Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution 510 23.42%
3. Materials and Resources 125 5.74%
4. Water Circulation Management 140 6.43%
5. Maintenance 52.5 2.41%
6. Ecological Environment 102.5 4.71%
7. Indoor Environment 320 14.70%
8. Library Resources 415 19.06%
9. Eco-friendly Education Program and Campaign 230 10.56%
10. Employees and Operations 75 3.44%
11. Computerization 112.5 5.17%
Sum 2,177.5 100%

4. Results
4.1 Evaluation of All Items for Level of Eco-Friendliness in Libraries

To evaluate the level of eco-friendliness in the libraries, 11 areas were categorized for evaluation and the averages were calculated. Based on the full scores, the areas with highest scores of eco-friendliness were, in order: energy and prevention of environmental pollution with 510, library resources with 415, and the indoor environment with 320. In evaluating the level of eco-friendliness, the greenest areas were in order: library resources with a score of 176.92, energy and prevention of environmental pollution with a score of 172.69, and the indoor environment with a score of 150.88; the least green area was employees and operations with 16.38.

Additionally, the biggest gap with the full score was observed in the area of the eco-friendly education program and campaign by approximately 7 times, and the smallest gap was measured as approximately 1.5 times.

In addition, regarding the scores by the libraries, the highest scores of the libraries were 179.77 for A10 library, 120.57 for A08 library, and 97.09 for A02 library; the lowest score was 28.82 for A09 library, registering an approximately 6 times difference in comparison to the highest score.

Table 3. 
Level of Eco-friendliness in Evaluated Libraries
Evaluation Area Full Score A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 A11 A12 A13 Sum Mean Std.
1. Land Use and Traffic 95 44 60 40 55.5 95 87.5 63 72.5 37.5 74 95 77 52 853 65.62 19.776
2. Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution 510 85.25 271 184.75 83.5 59.25 176 62.5 317.75 82.5 489 169 163.5 101 2245 172.69 124.130
3. Materials and Resources 125 15 83 3 23.5 38.5 21 18 69.5 15 97.5 38.5 25.5 25 473 36.38 28.913
4. Water Circulation Management 140 101.5 94.5 24.5 17.5 21 52.5 17.5 98 3.5 140 24.5 94.5 98 787.5 60.58 44.990
5. Maintenance 52.5 10.5 28 10.5 14 0 21 10.5 38.5 7 52.5 17.5 21 14 245 18.85 14.039
6. Ecological Environment 102.5 17.5 42 3.5 21 20 10.5 10.5 44 10.5 85 10.5 34.5 16.5 326 25.08 22.009
7. Indoor Environment 320 115 167 132 97.5 112 146 104.5 243.5 97.5 320 137.5 142 147 1961.5 150.88 63.733
8. Library Resources 415 82.5 214 107 162 159 259 218 271.5 54 365 165 154 89 2300 176.92 87.547
9. Eco-friendly Education Program and Campaign 230 3 22.5 15 0 24 19.5 21.5 76.5 0 215 9 24 6 436 33.54 57.956
10. Employees and Operations 75 0 36 0 12 9 45 9 27 3 45 3 6 18 213 16.38 16.505
11. Computerization 112.5 0 50 59 17.5 17.5 85.5 17.5 67.5 17.5 94.5 23.5 47 47 544 41.85 29.167
Sum 2177.50 474.25 1068.00 579.25 504.00 555.25 923.50 552.50 1326.25 328.00 1977.50 693.00 789.00 613.50 10384.00 　
Mean 197.95 43.114 97.091 52.659 45.818 50.477 83.955 50.227 120.568 29.818 179.773 63.000 71.727 55.773 944.000

4.2 Evaluation of the Level of Eco-friendliness by Evaluation Items

The evaluation areas that were defined by 11 items contained 1-4 evaluation items for each area. The levels of eco-friendliness in each were summed, averaged, and compared with the full scores of each evaluation item to calculate the ratio of the average of each evaluation item to the full scores. As a result, first, those scoring the highest ratio of average scores to the full score in the area of land use and traffic were determined to be reduction of traffic load, which scored 81.53%, ecological value, which scored 49.26%, and effect of adjacent land, which scored 46.17%.

Second, the area of energy and prevention of environmental pollution showed the lowest ratio of average scores to the full score. In this area, the highest ratio of average scores was obtained by energy conservation, which scored 37.40%.

Third, in the area of materials and resources, the highest ratio of average scores among the evaluation items was 70.80%, but utilization of sustainable resources scored considerably lower with 23.43%.

Fourth, in the area of water circulation management, establishment of water circulation system scored 52.30% and water resource conservation scored 37.85%.

Fifth, the area of maintenance also scored lower; effective building management scored around 40% but systematic field management scored much lower with 27.71%.

Sixth, the area of ecological environment scored on average around 25%; scoring the highest was construction of green areas in the land site with 35.37% and lowest construction of living space for plants with 21.60%.

Seventh, the area of indoor environment showed a much higher level than other areas; in particular, light environment scored 60.00% and construction of pleasant indoor environment scored 62.57% respectively.

Eighth, the area of library resources scored similarly with 61.54% in the use of space, 54.91% in library supplies, and 51.66% in collection management

Ninth, the area of eco-friendly education program and campaign scored the lowest among the 11 areas; all evaluation items scored more than or around 10% as compared to the full scores. In particular, green cultural programs scored the lowest among all of the evaluation items with 10.27%.

Tenth, the area of employees and operations included one evaluation item with a score of 21.84%.

Eleventh, in the computerization area, green content scored the highest with 39.12%, followed in order by automation, which scored 38.70%, and eco-friendly library service, which scored 26.13%.

Among 31 evaluation items, the highest ratio of average scores to the full scores was obtained by the item of reduction of traffic load which scored 81.53% against the full scores. This item scored substantially higher than items such as building a bicycle shed, shortening the distance to the public transportation facilities, and constructing libraries near residential areas. On the other hand, among 31 evaluation items, the lowest ratio of average scores to the full scores was obtained by the item of green cultural programs which scored 10.27%, implying that this was the least green area of domestic libraries. In other words, promotional programs for eco-friendly products were largely unknown and local organizations such as Green Korea United rarely cooperated.

According to the evaluation results, most of the areas had significant differences from green libraries, leading to the conclusion that the individual libraries should increase the level of eco-friendliness with a focus on the evaluated areas in which the lowest scores were received.

Table 4. 
Level of Eco-friendliness in Libraries by Evaluation Items
Evaluation Area Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score Ratio of average scores to the full scores
1. Land Use and Traffic 1.1 Ecological Value 112 8.62 7.906 17.5 49.26
1.2 Effect of Adjacent Land 105 8.08 8.256 17.5 46.17
1.3 Reduction of Traffic Load 636 48.92 0.693 60 81.53
2. Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution 2.1 Energy Conservation 1835.5 141.19 1.899 377.5 37.40
2.2 Use of Sustainable Energy Sources 251 19.31 1.703 82.5 23.41
2.3 Prevention of Global Warming 158.5 12.19 0.590 50 24.38
3. Materials and Resources 3.1 Resource Conservation 138 10.62 6.076 15 70.80
3.2 Utilization of Sustainable Resources 335 25.77 2.011 110 23.43
4. Water Circulation Management 4.1 Establishment of Water Circulation System 357 27.46 0.420 52.5 52.30
4.2 Water Conservation 430.5 33.12 0.593 87.5 37.85
5. Maintenance 5.1 Systematical Field Management 63 4.85 6.476 17.5 27.71
5.2 Effective Building Management 182 14.00 1.667 35 40.00
6. Ecological Environment 6.1 Construction of Green Area in the Land Site 80.5 6.19 5.743 17.5 35.37
6.2 Acquiring Ecological Functions of Outside Area and Building Envelope 56 4.31 5.182 17.5 24.63
6.3 Construction of Living Space for Plants 189.5 14.58 1.723 67.5 21.60
7. Indoor Environment 7.1 Air Environment 586 45.08 1.484 142.5 31.64
7.2 Sound Environment 87.5 6.73 7.886 17.5 38.46
7.3 Light Environment 312 24.00 0.288 40 60.00
7.4 Construction of Pleasant Indoor Environment 976 75.08 2.039 120 62.57
8. Library Resources 8.1 Collection Management 436.5 33.58 1.551 65 51.66
8.2 Library Supplies 642.5 49.42 1.530 90 54.91
8.3 Resource Saving 941 72.38 1.320 225 32.17
8.4 Use of Space 280 21.54 0.760 35 61.54
9. Eco-friendly Education Program and Campaign 9.1 Environmental Education for Users and the Public 238 18.31 0.629 110 16.65
9.2 Green Culture Program 60 4.62 1.695 45 10.27
9.3 Campaign 138 10.62 1.297 75 14.16
10. Employees and Operations 10.1 Employees and Operations 213 16.38 1.601 75 21.84
11. Computerization 11.1 Green Content 241.5 18.58 2.144 47.5 39.12
11.2 Eco-friendly Library Service 51 3.92 4.481 15 26.13
11.3 Automation 251.5 19.35 3.190 50 38.70

4.3 Evaluation of the Level of Eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items and Indicators
4.3.1 Land Use and Traffic

In evaluating the level of eco-friendliness in the area of land use and traffic, a total of five items were identified. As a result, the highest averages were scored 18.15 for facilities for reducing the traffic, 15.69 for the distance between the city center and a library, and 15.0 for the proximity to public transportation.

In comparison with the full scores, the biggest difference was observed in the validity of measures for preventing violation of a right to sunlight by approximately 2.2 times, and the smallest difference was observed in the facilities for reducing traffic by approximately 1.1 times.

Table 5. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Land Use and Traffic
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
1. Land Use and Traffic 1.1.1 Ecological Value of Existing Land 112 8.62 7.906 17.5
1.2.1 Validity of Measures for Preventing Violation of a Right to Sunlight 105 8.08 8.256 17.5
1.3.1 Proximity to the Public Transportation 196 15.08 5.693 20
1.3.2 Facilities for Reducing the Traffic 236 18.15 5.565 20
1.3.3 Distance between the City Center and a Library 204 15.69 6.824 20

4.3.2 Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution

When the level of eco-friendliness in the area of energy and prevention of environmental pollution was evaluated by a total of nine items, the highest averages were scored for the use of artificial lighting with high energy efficiency, followed by increased efficiency of the cooling/heating system, and facilities for reducing heat island effect. The lowest average was for facilities controlled by sensors.

In comparing the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in facilities controlled by sensors by approximately 5.1 times, and the least difference was shown in increased efficiency of cooling/ heating system by two times.

Table 6. 
Level of Eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
2. Energy and Prevention of Environmental Pollution 2.1.1 Facilities Controlled by Sensors 133 3.41 0.535 17.5
2.1.2 High-efficiency Air Conditioning/Heating Facilities and System 640 7.03 3.088 19.64
2.1.3 Increased Efficiency of Cooling/Heating with Work for Eco-friendliness 115.5 8.88 8.284 17.5
2.1.4 Facilities for Reducing Heat Island Effect 217 8.35 1.221 17.5
2.1.5 Utilization of Natural Light for Library Lighting 296 7.59 0.881 20
2.1.6 Use of Artificial lighting with high energy efficiency 252 9.69 1.005 20
2.1.7 Energy Conservation for Landscape Management with Installation of Irrigation Facilities 182 7.00 0.252 17.5
2.2.1 Use of New & Renewable Energy 251 3.86 1.703 16.5
2.3.1 Reduced Emission of CO2 158.5 4.06 0.590 16.67
Sum 2245 6.65 2.520

4.3.3 Materials and Resources

The level of eco-friendliness in the area of materials and resources was evaluated by six items. The highest averages were scored for conservation of consumer goods in bathrooms, separate collection of recyclable resources, and using certified eco-friendly products for effective resource recycling. The lowest average was for indoor library facilities, showing more than 7 times the difference in comparison to the highest average score.

In comparison with the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in indoor library facilities by approximately 11 times, and the least difference was shown in conservation of consumer goods in bathrooms by approximately 1.4 times.

Table 7. 
Level of Eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Materials and Resources
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
3. Materials and Resources 3.1.1 Conservation of Consumer Goods in Bathroom 138 10.62 6.076 15
3.2.1 Usage of Certified Eco-friendly Products for Effective Resource Recycling 56 4.31 6.253 17.5
3.2.2 Sustainable Construction Materials 57 2.19 0.030 15
3.2.3 Separate Collection of Recyclable Resource 165 6.35 3.735 16.25
3.2.4 Indoor Library Facilities 18 1.38 3.380 15
3.2.5 Display of CO2 Emissions of Material 39 3.00 5.874 15
Sum 473 4.64 2.401

4.3.4 Water Circulation Management

When the level of eco-friendliness in the area of water circulation management was evaluated using four items, the highest averages were scored 9.15 for validity of measures for reducing rainwater load, 7.27 for using rainwater, and 6.73 for validity of measures for reducing water for daily life.

In comparison to the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in installation of water reuse systems by 3.8 times and the least difference was shown in the validity of measures for reducing rainwater load by 1.9 times.

Table 8. 
Level of Eco-Friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Water Circulation Management
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
4. Water Circulation Management 4.1.1 Validity of Measures for Reducing Rainwater Load 357 9.15 0.420 17.5
4.2.1 Validity of Measures for reducing water use 87.5 6.73 7.350 17.5
4.2.2 Usage of Rainwater 283.5 7.27 0.460 17.5
4.2.3 Installation of Water Reuse system 59.5 4.58 6.760 17.5
Sum 787.5 6.93 3.827

4.3.5 Maintenance

The level of eco-friendliness in the area of maintenance was evaluated by three items. The averages were scored 7.54 for validity of management documents for operation/maintenance and guidelines, 6.46 for performance of TAB and commissioning, and 4.85 for rationality of a field management plan in consideration of the environment.

In comparison with the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in rationality of a field management plan in consideration of the environment by 3.6 times, and the least difference was shown in the validity of management documents for operation/maintenance and guidelines by 2.3 times.

Table 9. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Maintenance
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
5. Maintenance 5.1.1 Rationality of Field Management Plan in Consideration of Environment 63 4.85 6.476 17.5
5.2.1 Validity of Management Documents for Operation/Maintenance and Guidelines 98 7.54 5.317 17.5
5.2.2 Performance of TAB and Commissioning 84 6.46 7.674 17.5
Sum 245 6.28 1.179

4.3.6 Ecological Environment

The level of eco-friendliness in the area of ecological environment was evaluated by three items. The highest averages were scored at 6.19 for green area ratio of natural ground, 4.31 for ecological area ratio, and 3.64 for construction of biotopes.

In comparison with the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in construction of biotopes by 4.6 times, and the least difference was shown in green area ratio of natural ground by 2.8 times.

Table 10. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Ecological Environment
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
6. Ecological Environment 6.1.1 Green Area Ratio of Natural Ground 80.5 6.19 5.743 17.5
6.2.1 Ecological Area Ratio 56 4.31 5.182 17.5
6.3.1 Construction of Biotope 189.5 3.64 2.068 16.88
Sum 326 4.71 1.980

4.3.7 Indoor Environment

The level of eco-friendliness in the area of indoor environment was evaluated by eight items. The highest averages were scored for construction of restful and refreshing spaces, pleasantness of indoor environment in construction and remodeling of library buildings, and daylight acquisition rate. The lowest average was scored for application of products with low-emission of pollutants to indoor air, showing approximately 4 times the difference in comparison to the highest average score.

In comparison with the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in the application of products with low-emission of pollutants to indoor air by 4.2 times, and the least difference was shown in the construction of restful and refreshing space by 1.2 times.

Table 11. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Indoor Environment
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
7. Indoor Environment 7.1.1 Application of Products with Low-emission of Pollutants to Indoor Air 108.5 4.17 0.780 17.5
7.1.2 Acquisition of Natural Air Ventilation 250 6.41 2.391 18.33
7.1.3 Performance of Ventilation for Unit Household 227.5 5.83 0.703 17.5
7.2.1 Indoor Noise Level with Traffic Noise (Road and Railroad) 87.5 6.73 7.886 17.5
7.3.1 Daylight Acquisition Rate 312 12.00 0.288 20
7.4.1 Construction of Restful and Refreshing Space 212 16.31 4.151 20
7.4.2 Construction of Clean Indoor Environment 264 10.15 1.191 20
7.4.3 Pleasantness of Indoor Environment in Construction and Remodeling of Library Buildings 500 12.82 1.056 20
Sum 1961.5 9.30 2.573

4.3.8 Library Resources

When the level of eco-friendliness in the area of library resources was evaluated by 15 items, the highest averages were scored for effective use of total space, electronic equipment, and use of eco-friendly fixtures. The lowest average was scored for recycling library materials, showing approximately 7 times of difference in comparison to the highest average score.

In comparison with the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in recycling library materials by 6.2 times, and the least difference was shown in effective use of total space by approximately 1.2 times.

Table 12. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Library Resources
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
8. Library Resources 8.1.1 Effective Preservation of Collection 117 9.00 5.050 15
8.1.2 Proper Disposal of Materials 63 4.85 5.257 17.5
8.1.3 Active Use of Electronic Resources 256.5 9.87 1.232 16.25
8.2.1 Eco-friendliness of Supplies Management 122.5 9.42 9.080 17.5
8.2.2 Electronic Equipment 133 10.23 6.619 17.5
8.2.3 Use of Eco-friendly Fixtures 387 9.92 0.733 18.33
8.3.1 Introduction of Resource Saving System and Development of Eco-friendly Management 117 4.50 2.553 15
8.3.2 Recycling Paper Resources 189 7.27 0.268 17.5
8.3.3 Recycling Library Furniture 105 4.04 1.547 15
8.3.4 Recycling Content-containing Media 142.5 5.48 0.896 16.25
8.3.5 Recycling Library Consumables 132 5.08 0.960 16.25
8.3.6 Recycling Library Materials 63 2.42 0.472 15
8.3.7 Resource Conservation by Library Cooperation 192.5 7.40 0.240 17.5
8.4.1 Use of Space 60 4.62 6.436 15
8.4.2 Effective Use of Total Space 220 16.92 7.511 20
Sum 2300 7.40 3.061

4.3.9 Eco-friendly Education Programs and Campaigns

The level of eco-friendliness in the area of eco-friendly education programs and campaigns was evaluated by eight items. The highest averages were scored for environmental education with library tours and providing materials, educational programs for eco-friendliness, and awards. The lowest average was scored for promotional programs of eco-friendly products, showing approximately a 4 times of difference in comparison to the highest average score.

In comparison with the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in promotional programs of eco-friendly products by 16.3 times, and the least difference was shown in environmental education with library tours and providing materials by 4.3 times. This area showed the greatest gap in the averages in comparison to the full scores among other evaluation areas for greening.

Table 13. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Eco-friendly Education Program and Campaign
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
9. Eco-friendly Education Program and Campaign 9.1.1 Educational program for Eco-friendliness 133 2.56 0.627 16.25
9.1.2 Environmental Education with Library Tour and Provision of Materials 90 3.46 0.635 15
9.1.3 Environmental Education with Ecological Experience Activities 15 1.15 4.160 15
9.2.1 Promotional Program of Eco-friendly Products 12 0.92 2.253 15
9.2.2 Green Program in Cooperation with Local Communities 48 1.85 1.032 15
9.3.1 Awards 90 2.31 1.218 15
9.3.2 Operation of Green Market 27 2.08 4.132 15
9.3.3 Event for Environmental Day 21 1.62 3.380 15
Sum 436 1.99 1.522

4.3.10 Employees and Operations

The level of eco-friendliness in the area of employees and operations was evaluated by two items. In comparison to the full score of 15 points, the eco-friendliness of duties and employees’ activities showed 4.3 times difference with a 3.23 score, and the structure of eco-friendly organizations showed 4.6 times difference with a 3.46 score.

Table 14. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Employees and Operations
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
10. Employees and Operations 10.1.1 Structure of Eco-friendly Organization 45 3.46 6.578 15
10.1.2 Eco-friendliness of Duties and Employees’ Activities 168 3.23 1.341 15
Sum 213 3.35 3.703

4.3.11 Computerization

The level of eco-friendliness in the area of computerization was evaluated by six items, with the highest averages being scored for using OPAC service, green IT solutions such as search systems, and providing websites with rich content. The lowest average was scored for using Web 2.0 tools, showing more than 10 times difference in comparison to the highest average score.

In comparison to the full scores, the greatest difference was shown in using Web 2.0 tools by 13 times, and the least difference was shown in using OPAC services by approximately 1.4 times. Regarding the OPAC services, it was expected that all libraries would obtain full scores, but actually few libraries even owned their websites.

Table 15. 
Level of eco-friendliness by Specific Evaluation Items in the Area of Computerization
Evaluation Area Specific Evaluation Items Sum Mean Std. Full Score
11. Computerization 11.1.1 Use of Web 2.0 Tool 15 1.15 4.160 15
11.1.2 OPAC Service 157.5 12.12 8.407 17.5
11.1.3 Provision of website with Rich Content 69 5.31 5.765 15
11.2.1 Provision of e-materials 51 3.92 4.481 15
11.3.1 Green IT Solution such as Search System 227.5 8.75 0.000 17.5
11.3.2 Digitization of Printed Materials 24 1.85 2.882 15
Sum 544 5.52 2.813

4.4 Level of eco-friendliness and the Evaluation Result

This study aimed to measure the level of eco-friendliness in libraries, and grade libraries based on actual data. USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council, 2014) developed an evaluation system for certifying eco-friendly buildings (LEED; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Green Building Rating System) in 2000. It was composed of 6 categories and 34 specific items to apply the green building rating system in evaluating the libraries in the US according to the level of eco-friendliness. The basic evaluation score was a total of 69 points, ranked by the level of eco-friendliness: 26 points for Certified, 33 points for Silver, 39 points for Gold, and over 52 points for Platinum. This study determined the libraries’ levels of evaluation by 5 grades, and the scores were rated by over 60 % for Diamond, 50%-60% for Platinum, 40% - 50% for Gold, 30% - 40% for Silver, 20% -30% for Certified, and less than 20% for Non-certified. The score ranges according to the grades and the evaluation results of the libraries were as follows:

Table 16. 
Score Ranges According to the Grades and the Grade of Each Library
Grade Evaluation and distribution Libraries Ratio
Diamond More than 60 % A10, A08 15.39%
Platinum More than 50% -Less than 60% - 0%
Gold More than 40% -Less than 50% A02, A06 15.39%
Silver More than 30% -Less than 40% A11, A12 15.39%
Certified More than 20% -Less than 30% A01, A03, A04, A05, A07, A13 38.46%
Non-certified Less than 20% A09 7.7%

5. Conclusion & Future Research
5.1 Conclusion
5.1.1 Development Study for Evaluation Indicators

In the past, the world accomplished rapid industrial growth to comprehensively improve the quality of human life. However, the natural environment, which establishes the foundation of human life, has been almost as quickly destroyed. Recently growth has been curtailed due to the great expense incurred from damage to the environment.

As a result, discussions of sustainable development began in various fields of society with a concentration of efforts to identify ways to conserve the environment and develop the economy in a more balanced way. The term “green growth” became important through a series of conscious and practical developments. It started with a critical look at environmental problems and progressed to seeking ways to encourage sustainable development, taking a greater interest in improving the quality of life, and promoting an exploration of a green society. Green growth supported eco-efficient policies for economic growth which would cause the least damage to the environment while still improving the economy.

Libraries, too, should pursue these same goals. Accordingly, libraries should achieve their goal to provide information to users in an eco-friendly way. However, the knowledge of how to best act as eco-friendly libraries needed to be identified in a systematic manner. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and propose specific evaluation items and evaluation indicators for eco-friendly libraries to suggest directions for development and growth. Up to now, the indicators for certifying green libraries were applied by evaluation items according to the types of commercial buildings and other institutional buildings, not reflecting the features of libraries but only general architectural aspects. To certify as green libraries, a variety of aspects should be considered, such as materials, services, and library interior. In reviewing the literature, eco-friendly green libraries were certified in the US, the UK, Canada, and in Korea as well, but as stated above, the basis concentrated on the physical standards only. Thus, examples of green movement libraries were collected from all around the world to find the green factors of libraries and to develop the evaluation indicators accordingly. To do so, a survey was conducted of employees of libraries with regard to specific evaluation items as determined to examine and recognize the importance of other criteria and to propose that these evaluation indicators be used to certify green libraries.

Based on the research questions, the evaluation results that were found in this study were discussed as follows: First, regarding the question of “Do employees of the library think that establishment of green libraries is necessary?”, the employees of the libraries responded yes by 65.52%, with only 4.6% responding that it would not be necessary; the average was significantly high with a result of 3.793. Regarding the effect of the establishment of green libraries, 68.97% responded that it would be helpful, and only 4.6% responded that it would have no effect; in particular, they indicated that the effect would enhance the best use of energy resources and save energy with a proper indoor environment (design).

Second, regarding the need for developing specific evaluation items for green libraries based on the libraries’ characteristics, 60% responded yes, and 54.03% were not aware that the certification of green libraries was being done by using the same standards as those for commercial and other institutional buildings; thus, 40.23% responded that certification organization for green libraries, based on the libraries’ characteristics, was necessary, and it should be performed by the G-SEED organization. However, 29.89% thought that cooperation between the certification organization and the G-SEED organization would be effective; the latter method could be better for improving the status of green libraries.

Third, the most important evaluation areas of green libraries, according to the opinions of the libraries’ employees, were ranked in order: the indoor environment, energy and prevention of environmental pollution, and materials and resources areas. As the subjects of the survey were the employees of the libraries, it was expected that they would give relatively high scores for eco-friendliness to the use of resources and to the duties and operations of the libraries, but they actually considered other factors as having more significance. Furthermore, the area of computerization scored relatively lower than other areas, indicating little consensus for eco-friendliness in computerization. It implied the need for education for this aspect of green libraries.

5.1.2 Evaluation Results for Green Libraries

This study aimed at 20 libraries in Korea that were currently certified as green libraries based solely on their architectural aspects. It evaluated the libraries using the evaluation indicators developed in this study to grade the levels of these factors in the libraries. The results were as follows:

First, 11 areas were determined to evaluate the level of eco-friendliness in the libraries; the highest averages were scored for the area of energy and prevention of environmental pollution (510), library resources (415), and indoor environment (320).

Second, according to the specific evaluation items in the area of land use and traffic, the highest averages for eco-friendliness were scored for facilities for the reduction of traffic (18.15), distance between the city center and a library (15.69), and proximity to public transportation (15.0). In comparison to the full score, the item of building a bicycle shed was the closest to the full score.

Third, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of energy and prevention of environmental pollution was evaluated by a total of nine items, and the highest averages were scored 9.69 for using artificial lighting with high energy efficiency, 8.88 for increased efficiency of cooling/heating systems, and 8.35 for facilities for reducing the heat island effect. In comparison to the full score, the item of increased efficiency of cooling/heating systems was the closest to the full score.

Fourth, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of materials and resources was evaluated by six items, and the highest averages were scored for conserving consumer goods in bathrooms (10.62), separate collection of recyclable resources (6.35), and using certified eco-friendly products for effective resource recycling (4.31).

Fifth, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of water circulation management was evaluated by four items, and the highest averages were scored for validity of measures for reducing rainwater load (9.15), using rainwater (7.27), and validity of measures for reducing water for daily life (6.73). In comparison to the full score, the item of validity of measures for reducing rainwater load was the closest to the full score.

Sixth, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of maintenance was evaluated by three items, and the highest averages were scored for validity of management documents for operation/maintenance and guidelines (7.54), performance of TAB commissioning (6.46), and rationality of the field management plan in consideration of the environment (4.85). In comparison to the full score, the item of validity of management documents for operation/maintenance and guidelines was the closest to the full score.

Seventh, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of ecological environment was evaluated by three items, and the highest averages were scored for green area ratio of natural ground (6.19), ecological area ratio (4.31), and construction of biotopes (3.64). In comparison to the full score, the item of green area ratio of natural ground was the closest to the full score.

Eighth, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of indoor environment was evaluated by eight items, and the highest averages were scored for construction of restful and refreshing space (16.31), pleasantness of indoor environment in construction and remodeling of library buildings (12.82), and acquisition rate of daylight (12.00). In comparison to the full score, the item of construction of restful and refreshing space was the closest to the full score.

Ninth, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of library resources was evaluated by 15 items; the highest averages were scored for effective use of total space (16.92), electronic equipment (10.23), and use of eco-friendly fixtures (9.92). In comparison to the full score, the item of effective use of total space was the closest to the full score.

Tenth, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of eco-friendly education programs and campaigns

was evaluated by eight items, and the highest averages were scored for environmental education with library tour and provision of materials (3.46), educational programs on eco-friendliness (2.56), and awards (2.31). In comparison to the full score, the item of environmental education with library tours and the provision of materials was the closest to the full score.

Eleventh, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of employees and operations was evaluated by two items; in comparison to the full score of 15 points, the eco-friendliness of duties and employee activities showed 4.3 times the difference with a score of 3.23, and the structure of eco-friendly organization showed 4.6 times the difference with a score of 3.46.

Twelfth, the level of eco-friendliness in the area of computerization was evaluated by six items, and the highest averages were scored for using OPAC service (12.12), green IT solutions such as a search systems (8.75), and providing a website with rich content (5.31). In comparison to the full score, the item of using OPAC service was the closest.

Last, the libraries were graded based on actual data according to the results to measure the level of eco-friendliness, two libraries were graded as Diamond, the highest grade, accounting for 15.39% of all libraries; Gold and Silver grades accounted for another 15.39%, together five Certified graded libraries accounted for 38.46%, which was the highest rate among the libraries. Any library scoring less than 20% when compared to the full score was graded as Non-certified, and one library, which scored 15.06% fell into this category.

This study assessed the certified libraries as green libraries in compliance with the current standards of construction and examined the differences in comparison to the evaluation standards for green libraries when other characteristics of the libraries were taken into consideration. As a result, one library was found to be non-certified.

5.2 Future Research

The results of this study set up to serve as basic data for the direction of development for green libraries in our country, as well as a reference for the employees of libraries in constructing or remodeling library buildings, establishing service infrastructure, providing information service, and planning library duties in an eco-friendly way. Furthermore, while recently a number of libraries were eco-friendly certified, the previous evaluations only reflected the architectural aspects without taking into consideration the other characteristics of the libraries. The evaluation indicators for eco-friendly green libraries that were developed in this study based on the features of libraries should evaluate the eco-friendliness of the libraries with more accuracy.

However, the weighted values for the evaluation indicators or specific evaluation guidelines according to each evaluation indicator have not been developed yet. Therefore, first, a future study should assign weighted values to the 135 evaluation indicators that scored more than three points. Also, specific guidelines for scoring according to each item of the evaluation indicators must be developed. Second, after completion of the evaluation indicators, weighted values according to the evaluation indicators, and the evaluation guidelines, future studies should actually evaluate libraries. In actually evaluating libraries, new problems may be found, and the evaluation indicators should be modified and supplemented accordingly. A national approach would be more effective to evaluate the level of eco-friendliness of the libraries in our country with more accuracy.

Third, this research was a basic study performed through personal research using the results of several years. Therefore, a future study should be performed on a national level with a wider scope. In other words, the evaluation indicators for green libraries should be developed on a national level.

Fourth, as this study was performed on a personal level, covering the libraries in the entire country was not practical. Thus, all of the libraries nationwide should be evaluated based on the evaluation indicators for green libraries that were developed on a national level.

Fifth, the libraries in this study scored relatively low in grading, but the number of subjects were small in the evaluation. In the US, Certified received grades of 37.68%; Silver scored 48.83%; Gold scored 56.52%; and Platinum scored 75.36%. If the distribution of the libraries were nationwide in Korea, the results would be different. Therefore, the scope of research should be expanded and the grades of evaluation should then be upgraded.

This study developed evaluation indicators for green libraries in reflection of the features of the libraries for the first time. During the time that critical environmental problems such as global warming were on the rise, examples of constructing eco-friendly green libraries have been found more often in the library field. While, certification of green libraries was performed to measure the level of eco-friendliness of the libraries, the standards were concerned only with the architectural aspects, so that resources inside and outside of the libraries, library programs, eco-friendliness of library organization and employees, etc. could not be evaluated. With this in mind, this study sought to develop evaluation indicators for green libraries reflecting those characteristics. It is expected that researchers in the future will add more ideas to develop advanced evaluation indicators to refine and enhance green libraries going forward.

The evaluation indicators for green libraries should be the guidelines for government and library employees for directing the construction of green libraries.

References
1. Ahn, I. J., Kwak, C. W., Noh, Y., & Park, M., (2012), How do they Make Libraries Green?: A Case Based Study on Building Green Libraries, Journal of Information Management, 43(1), p135-158.
2. Ahn, I. J., & Noh, Y., (2013), An Analysis of Literature Trends in Green Library, Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 24(1), p189-205.
3. Brown, B., (2003), The new green standard, Library Journal, 128(20), p61-61.
4. Cal Recycle, (2000), Green Building Basics, Retrieved from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Basics.htm.
5. Hong, S., & Noh, Y., (2014), A Study on Green Library Construction Status and Awareness, Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for library and Information Science, 25(4), p79-108.
6. Jankowska, M. A., (2008), A call for sustainable library operations and services: A response to ACRL’s 2007 environmental scan, College & Research Libraries News, 69(6), p323-324.
7. Jankowska, M. A., (2011), Going beyond environmental programs and green practices at the American Library Association, Electronic Green Journal, 1(32), p1-17.
8. Jung, J. D., & Choi, Y. A., (2006), An Analysis of Assessment Indicators and Certificated Cases by Green Building Program, Architectural Institute of Korea, 22(8), p27-36.
9. Lee, S. M., Park, S. D., Shin, K. S., & Choi, M. H., (2006), A Study on Comparing and Analyzing Items of Domestic and Foreign Green Building Certification Criteria, Architectural Institute of Korea, 22(2), p201-208.
10. Mikkelsen, J., (2014), Going for the Gold: Building a Sustainable LEED™ Library, OLA Quarterly, 13(4), p12-17.
11. Miller, K., (2010), Public libraries going green, Chicago, American Library Association.
12. Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Minister of Environment, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, (2013), 2013 G-seed Annual Report, Gyeonggi, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology Green Building Center.
13. Monika, A., (2008), The green library movement; an overview of green library literature and actions from 1979 to the future of green libraries, Electronic Green Journal, 20(08).
14. Neale, J. C., (2008), BACKTALK-Go Green!, Library Journal, 133(2), p46-46.
15. Park, S. D., & Shin, G. S., (2006), Development direction and promotion plan of Green Building Certification System, Korea Green Building Council, (2006-04), p1-27.
16. Pinkowski, J., (2007), Keeping track of green libraries, Library Journal, 132(15), p27-27.
17. Schaper, L., (2007), 17 best green practices from LJ's new landmark libraries, Library Journal, Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/890910-264/17_best_green_practices_from.html.csp,.
18. Schaper, L., (2010), Ten steps to sustainable library operations, Library Journal, Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6727897. html.
19. Schaper, L. L., (2003), Public input yields greener library design, Library Journal, 128(20), p62-62.
20. Seo, H. S., (2004), A study on the indoor environmental factors of green building rating system through case studies, (Master Thesis, Graduate School of Yonsei University).
21. Yoo, J. Y., Cho, D. W., & Chae, C. U., (2006), A Study on Comparing and Analyzing Domestic and Foreign Green Building Certification Criteria, Korean Institute of Ecological Architecture and Environment, p111-121.
22. Zhu, Y., Lin, B., & Yuan, B., (2010), Low-cost green building practice in China: Library of Shandong Transportation College, Frontiers of Energy and Power Engineering in China, 4(1), p100-105.
[ About the authors ]

Younghee Noh has an MA and a PhD in Library & Information Science from Yonsei University, Seoul. She has published more than 50 books, including 3 books awarded as Outstanding Academic Books by Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (Government) and more than 120 papers, including one selected as a Featured Article by the Informed Librarian Online in February 2012. She was listed in the Marquis Who's Who in the World in 2012‐2016 and Who's Who in Science and Engineering in 2016‐2017. She received research excellence awards from both Konkuk University (2009) and Konkuk University Alumni (2013) as well as recognition by “the award for Teaching Excellence” from Konkuk University in 2014. She received research excellence awards from ‘Korean Library and Information Science Society’ in 2014. One of the books she published in 2014, was selected as ‘Outstanding Academic Book’ by Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism in 2015. She received the Awards for Professional Excellence as Asia Library Leaders from Satija Research Foundation in Library and Information Science (India) in 2014. She has been a Chief Editor of World Research Journal of Library and Information Science in Mar 2013~ Feb 2016. Since 2004, she has been a Professor in the Department of Library & Information Science at Konkuk University, where sheteaches courses in Metadata, Digital Libraries, Processing of Internet Information Resources, and Digital Contents.

Inja Ahn is a Professor at the Department of Library Services and Data management, Tongwon University, Korea. While working at Tongwon University, she was the director of the university library, the dean of academic affairs, and the dean of student affairs. She has contributed papers in journals of repute at national and international level. She has been a speaker in a number of national conference and training workshops. As a professor of LIS, she has taught course leading to MS and Master's in Library level. She is a General Manager and a managind editor of The Biblia Society for Library and Information Science. She has served Korean Library Association as the chairman of the committee for information literacy.

She is the past pioneer Editor of “Research Institute for Knowledge Content Development &Technology”, a Quarterly publication of the Institute. Her vision is to inculcated information literacy skills among disabled persons of Korea and to advocate for establishing public library system in the small libraries. She may be contracted at HYPERLINK “ijahn@tw.ac.kr”

 

Copyright ⓒ 2011
Research Institute for Knowledge Content Development & Technology (RIKCDT)
#217, K3, Konkuk University Glocal Campus, 268 Chunwondaero Chungju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 380-701. Korea
el : 082-43-840-3415   RIKCDT homepage :http://kcdt.kku.ac.kr/
Youngji Shin: ijkcdt@gmail.com



Creative Commons LicenseInternational Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.