2016 5th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics

Comparing Public Library Management under
Designated Administrator System with Direct
Management:
Forcusing on Reference Service

Yuhiro Mizunuma

Keita Tsuji

Graduate School of Library, Information and Media
Studies
University of Tsukuba
1-2 Kasuga, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki-ken, JAPANyuhiro@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

Faculty of Library, Information and Media Science
University of Tsukuba
1-2 Kasuga, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki-ken, JAPANkeita@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

Abstract—In Japan, public libraries have long been managed
by local governments. However, with the introduction of thedesignated administrator system (DAS) in 2003, otherorganizations including private companies began to take overlibrary management. In this study, we examine the differences
between public libraries managed under DAS and those managed
directly by local government (LG), with a focus on reference
services. We compare the contents of the services provided andthe number of reference questions received. The results showthat LG libraries tend to answer users’ questions directly,
whereas DAS libraries tend to develop environments where users
can find answers for themselves, such as by providing PCs
connected to the Web and by offering classes on
information-seeking skills. Our analysis shows that the DAS
libraries receive more reference questions than LG libraries.
Keywords—designatedadministrator
system;management; public libraries; reference services

published by the National Diet Library (henceforth the “NDL
survey”). For (c), we obtained time series data from Statistics
on Libraries in Japan [2], by the Japan Library Association.
We classified libraries according to their types, first as either
main library or annex and second according to the type ofmunicipality to which each library belonged (e.g., cities,
special wards, or towns and villages). For each category, we
examined the differences between DAS and LG libraries.
Our research questions were as follows: (1) How do thecontents of services differ between DAS and LG libraries? (2)How do the two systems compare with regard to the number ofreference questions received? (3) How did the number ofreference questions change after the introduction of the DAS?
(4) Do these tendencies vary depending on the type of library?

library

II. RELATED STUDIES
Few studies have examined the performance of DAS
libraries or the services that they provide. In 2007, Koyama
and Nagata (2007) [3] conducted a questionnaire survey toinvestigate the merits of DAS, asking the staff at 82 public
libraries that had introduced or planned to introduce the new
system to describe its impact on costs and services. Maeda(2007) [4] conducted a survey to determine which services
improved under the DAS, finding that 14 libraries introduced
new services and 19 improved existing services such as
reference services. The Japan Library Association (2007) [5]also surveyed 51 libraries that introduced DAS, ascertainingthat 17 libraries changed their operating hours and 10 changed
their schedule of open days. Moreover, a few libraries
indicated that their services had improved under DAS.
However, these studies have had relatively small samples and alimited range of data.

I. INTRODUCTION
In Japan, public libraries have long been managed by local
governments (LGs). However, with the introduction of thedesignated administrator system (DAS) in 2003, otherorganizations including private companies began to take overlibrary management. Although the number of public libraries
managed under DAS has been increasing, this policy is still
under discussion and some have argued that it degrades thequality of library services. Nevertheless, very few studies havebeen conducted on the performance of DAS libraries.
To clarify the characteristics of DAS libraries, this study
investigates the difference between DAS libraries and“traditional” libraries, which are managed directly by LG, witha focus on reference services. More specifically, we compare(a) the contents of the services provided and (b) the number ofreference questions received. Furthermore, we investigate (c)the difference in the number of reference questions received bylibraries before and after the introduction of DAS. For
comparisons (a) and (b), we obtained data from Issues andPerspectives on Reference Services in Libraries of Japan [1],978-1-4673-8985-3/16 $31.00 © 2016 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2016.96

III. METHOD
We obtained data on (1) what services each libraryprovided and (2) how many reference questions each libraryreceived from the NDL survey. In this survey, a questionnaire
was sent to nearly all libraries across Japan to learn the current
37status of the reference services they provide. Answers to thequestions of each library are openly available on the Web, fromwhich we can find the contents of the services provided byeach library.

IR =where B2 is the average of the NRQs during the two years
before the introduction of the new system and A2 is the averagefor the two years after its introduction. These data wereobtained from the annual Statistics on Libraries in Japan. If the
IR is greater than zero, we can conclude that the NRQ
increased after the introduction of DAS.

We classified the public libraries that responded to the
NDL survey as either DAS or LG libraries based on the Reportabout Public Libraries Managed by the DesignatedAdministrator System (2012) [6]. This source includes a list of
all libraries managed under DAS; we thus identified libraries
listed in the report as DAS libraries and all others as LG
libraries.

For calculating IR, we classified the public libraries in
Statistics on Libraries in Japan as either DAS or LG libraries
based on the Report about Public Libraries Managed by the
Designated Administrator System (2015) [8]. This report also
indicated when each library introduced DAS. Additionally, we
also classified the libraries as either main libraries or annexes
and according to the type of municipality based on Statistics on
Libraries in Japan. We also excluded prefectural libraries fromour sample because there exist only four prefectural DAS
libraries.

We also classified the libraries based on NDL survey as
either main libraries or annexes. Furthermore, we classified
them according to the type of municipality served:
ordinance-designated cities, Tokyo special wards, cites notordinance-designated, and towns or villages [7]. We excluded
prefectural libraries from our sample because there exist only
two prefectural DAS libraries, making the comparison difficult.
Table I shows the total number of libraries in each category
within our sample for comparison.

TABLE I.

A2 − B2
×100 (%)
B2

Finally, we also calculated the IR of the NRQ at LG
libraries to compare with DAS libraries. Since there was nocomparable point in time when LG libraries underwent achange in system, we calculated the IR for every year from2004 to 2013 and adopted the average of these numbers as theannual IR for each library. Table II shows the number of oursamples to calculate the IR.

NUMBER OF SAMPLE LIBRARIES FOR COMPARISONTABLE II.

We selected 105 services covered in the NDL survey andexamined what percentage of DAS and LG libraries provide
them (henceforth “rates”). Where significant differences areobserved between the library systems, we will discuss theservice tendencies of each system. In addition, based on thenumber of reference questions received by each library (asindicated in the NDL survey), we will characterize the relative
popularity of DAS and LG libraries’ reference services amongusers. We assume that the number of reference questions
indicates the popularity of the reference services and thatreceiving more questions reflects a higher quality of service.
To make more suitable comparisons, we divided the number ofreference questions by the population of the municipality inwhich the library is located to calculate the number ofreference questions per resident for each library. This approach
seemed most appropriate because one would expect libraries
located in higher-population areas to receive a larger total ofreference questions, regardless of their service quality. We willrefer to this statistic as “NRQ” for simplicity. The population
data were obtained from the 2010 Japanese census.

NUMBER OF SAMPLE LIBRARIES FOR INCREASE RATE

IV. RESULTS
In the following subsections, we will first present theresults of our comparison of services and NRQs between the
DAS and LG libraries. After that, we will consider the IR of
the NRQ after the introduction of DAS. We will discuss theresults by category of library (i.e., main vs. annex and type ofmunicipality).
A. Services
Table III shows the services for which significant
differences were observed between the DAS and LG libraries
using the Z-test for proportions. DAS libraries had significantly
higher rates, than LG libraries, of (1) offering classes on
information-seeking skills and (2) creating and providing
guides to help patrons find information. This suggests thatDAS libraries tend to educate their users to find desired

Furthermore, we investigated the change in the NRQ after
the introduction of the designated administrator system. Morespecifically, we calculated the increase rate, IR, defined asfollows:

38

information by themselves. DAS libraries also had higher rates
of providing (1) desktop computers, (2) printers, (3) copying
machines, and (4) environments where users can access for
specific contents, as compared to LG libraries. These results
would again be consistent with the proposed explanation thatDAS libraries are more proactive in enabling users to meettheir own needs without staff assistance.

(6) to academic libraries. The first three of these results suggestthat LG libraries are more willing to field reference questions
from people who do not visit the library or who live in othermunicipalities. Items (4)–(6) indicate a greater willingness
among the LG library staff to track down answers for patrons
by contacting other libraries.
This situation can be summarized by stating that LG
libraries tend to answer users’ questions directly, whereas DAS
libraries tend to develop environments where users can findanswers for themselves. Hereinafter, we refer to these twopatterns as LG libraries’ direct answer tendency and DAS
libraries’ indirect support tendency, respectively.

Meanwhile, LG libraries had significantly higher rates of(1) accepting reference questions from users living in othermunicipalities via the Web, (2) accepting reference questions
via email, (3) accepting reference questions via the Web form,(4) making inquiries to prefectural libraries in the prefecture towhich the library belongs, (5) to the National Diet Library, andTABLE III.

SERVICES WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED

Next, we will explain the results of each type of library(i.e., main vs. annex and types of municipalities). Among theannex libraries, both the LG libraries’ direct answer tendency
and the DAS libraries’ indirect support tendency areparticularly strong. DAS libraries had significantly higher rates
than LG libraries for 15 services, including (1) offering classes
on information-seeking skills, (2) creating and providing
guides to help patrons find information, providing (3) desktop
computers, (4) copy machines, (5) environments where users
can access for specific contents, (6) Internet access, and (7)printers. In addition, LG libraries had significantly higher rates
for 11 services, including (1) accepting reference questions
from users living in other municipalities via the Web, (2)accepting reference questions via email, (3) accepting
reference questions via the Web form, and (4) making
inquiries to the municipal libraries in the municipality to which
the library belongs.
On the other hand, among the main library facilities, DAS
libraries had significantly higher rates than LG libraries for
only five services, whereas LG libraries were significantly

39higher for two services. These differences did not show asimilar pattern of distinction between DAS libraries’ indirect
support tendency and LG libraries’ direct answer tendency, as
was observed in annex libraries.

DAS libraries appeared stronger in both indirect support
tendency and direct answer tendency.

As for the results by type of municipality, Tables IV
through VII indicate the services where significant differenceswere observed in ordinance-designated cities, Tokyo special
wards, other cities, and towns and villages, respectively. The
results show LG libraries’ direct answer tendency inordinance-designated cities, DAS libraries’ indirect support
tendency in other cities, and both tendencies in Tokyo special
wards. Specifically, in ordinance-designated cities, LG
libraries had significantly higher rates for (1) answering
questions that take a few days to research, (2) accepting
reference questions via the Web form, and (3) accepting
reference questions via email. In other cities, DAS libraries
had significantly higher rates for (1) creating and providing
guides to help patrons find information (2) providing desktop
computers, and (3) providing laptop computers. In Tokyo
special wards, DAS libraries had significantly higher rates for(1) offering classes on information-seeking skills and (2)providing environments where users can access for specificcontents, whereas LG libraries had significantly higher rates
for accepting reference questions via (1) fax, (2) letter, and (3)Web form.

B. Number of reference questions
Table VIII shows the NRQ for DAS and LG libraries,
along with the number of each category of library (represented
as “N”). The asterisks in the “Mean” column represent
significant differences based on Welch’s test, and those in the“Median” column represent the significant differences basedon the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The following discussion will
be based on the results for the median and Wilcoxon rank-sum
test, as these are more robust in the presence of outlier values.
With regard to the overall results, the median NRQ of DAS
libraries was 0.0063 and that of LG libraries was 0.0044.
There was a significant difference at the 0.05 level, suggestingthat DAS libraries receive more reference questions per
resident than LG libraries.
Next, let us look at the results for each type. In main
libraries, the median NRQ of DAS libraries was 0.0218 andthat of LG libraries was 0.0150 (no significant difference). On
the other hand, in annexes, the median NRQ of DAS libraries
was 0.0043 and that of LG libraries was 0.0024, representing asignificant difference at the 0.01 level.

Interestingly, DAS libraries in towns and villages
displayed both tendencies relative to their LG librarycounterparts. The LG libraries did not have significantly
higher rates for any service, whereas DAS libraries weresignificantly higher on 12 services, ranging from creating listsof links to useful information on the Web to accepting
reference questions via the Web form. In towns and villages,
TABLE IV.

Moreover, there were significant differences at the 0.01
level between DAS and LG libraries in ordinance-designatedcities (0.0030 and 0.0014, respectively) and in other cities(0.0079 and 0.0045, respectively). In towns and villages, there
was a significant difference at the 0.05 level (0.0343 for DAS
libraries, 0.0113 for LG libraries).

SERVICES WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED IN ORDINANCE-DESIGNATED CITIES40TABLE V.

SERVICES WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED IN TOKYO SPECIAL WARDS㻰㻭㻿㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㼟㻌㼣㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼟㼕㼓㼚㼕㼒㼕㼏㼍㼚㼠㻌㼐㼕㼒㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㼟㻌㼣㼑㼞㼑㻌㼛㼎㼟㼑㼞㼢㼑㼐㻸㻳㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻻㼒㼒㼑㼞㼕㼚㼓㻌㼏㼘㼍㼟㼟㼑㼟㻌㼛㼚㻌㼕㼚㼒㼛㼞㼙㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻙㼟㼑㼑㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼗㼕㼘㼘㼟㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼑㼚㼢㼕㼞㼛㼚㼙㼑㼚㼠㼟㻌㼣㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼡㼟㼑㼞㼟㻌㼏㼍㼚㻌㼍㼏㼏㼑㼟㼟㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㼟㼜㼑㼏㼕㼒㼕㼏㻌㼏㼛㼚㼠㼑㼚㼠㼟㻟㻥㻚㻝㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻢㻠㻕㻞㻢㻚㻢㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻢㻠㻕

㻢㻚㻣㻑
㻥㻚㻜㻑

㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㻿㻰㻵㻌㻔㻿㼑㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㻌㻰㼕㼟㼟㼑㼙㼕㼚㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㻵㼚㼒㼛㼞㼙㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻕㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼣㼔㼑㼚㻌㼜㼑㼛㼜㼘㼑㻌㼞㼑㼓㼕㼟㼠㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼍㼟㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻌㼡㼟㼑㼞㻭㼚㼟㼣㼑㼞㼕㼚㼓㻌㼠㼛㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠㻌㼟㼜㼑㼏㼕㼍㼘㻌㼏㼛㼘㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻝㻜㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻠㻢㻚㻜㻑 㻖㻞㻤㻚㻢㻑㻔㼚㻩㻢㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕

㻞㻚㻞㻑㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕
㻞㻢㻚㻥㻑㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻜㻕
㻡㻣㻚㻟㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻝㻕㻭㼚㼟㼣㼑㼞㼕㼚㼓㻌㼠㼛㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠㻌㼐㼕㼓㼕㼠㼍㼘㻌㼍㼞㼏㼔㼕㼢㼑㼟㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻌㼙㼍㼐㼑㻭㼏㼏㼑㼜㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼒㼍㼤㻭㼏㼏㼑㼜㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼘㼑㼠㼠㼑㼞

㻟㻚㻞㻑
㻟㻣㻚㻝㻑
㻡㻥㻚㻣㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻞㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻞㻕

㻝㻤㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻞㻕㻢㻠㻚㻤㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻞㻕㻤㻝㻚㻝㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻞㻕㻭㼏㼏㼑㼜㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼃㼑㼎㻌㼒㼛㼞㼙㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼠㼞㼛㼐㼡㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼠㼛㻌㼜㼞㼑㼒㼑㼏㼠㼡㼞㼍㼘㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻌㼕㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼜㼞㼑㼒㼑㼏㼠㼡㼞㼑㻌㼠㼛㻌㼣㼔㼕㼏㼔㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻌㼚㼛㼠㻌㼎㼑㼘㼛㼚㼓㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼝㼡㼕㼞㼕㼑㼟㻌㼠㼛㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㻺㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼍㼘㻌㻰㼕㼑㼠㻌㻸㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼝㼡㼕㼞㼕㼑㼟㻌㼠㼛㻌㼟㼜㼑㼏㼕㼍㼘㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟

㻟㻚㻟㻑
㻝㻝㻚㻝㻑
㻟㻠㻚㻥㻑
㻞㻞㻚㻞㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻢㻝㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕

㻞㻝㻚㻟㻑 㻖㻖㻟㻜㻚㻢㻑 㻖㻖㻡㻢㻚㻜㻑 㻖㻖㻠㻡㻚㻡㻑 㻖㻖㻯㼞㼑㼍㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼐㼕㼓㼕㼠㼍㼘㻌㼍㼞㼏㼔㼕㼢㼑㻌㼏㼛㼚㼠㼑㼚㼠㼟㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㼡㼟㼑㼞㼟㻌㼞㼑㼝㼡㼕㼞㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼒㼛㼞㼙㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼍㼎㼛㼡㼠㻌㼘㼍㼣㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼜㼍㼙㼜㼔㼘㼑㼠

㻜㻚㻜㻑
㻜㻚㻜㻑
㻣㻟㻚㻜㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻢㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕

㻝㻣㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕㻝㻞㻚㻜㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻟㻕㻥㻝㻚㻡㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻜㻕㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻓㼟㻌㼃㼑㼎㼟㼕㼠㼑㻭㼏㼏㼑㼜㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼒㼞㼛㼙㻌㼡㼟㼑㼞㼟㻌㼘㼕㼢㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㻌㼛㼠㼔㼑㼞㻌㼙㼡㼚㼕㼏㼕㼜㼍㼘㼕㼠㼕㼑㼟㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼃㼑㼎㻭㼏㼏㼑㼜㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼑㼙㼍㼕㼘

㻞㻡㻚㻠㻑
㻤㻚㻝㻑
㻜㻚㻜㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻞㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻝㻕

㻢㻠㻚㻢㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻜㻕㻟㻡㻚㻣㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻢㻕㻥㻚㻤㻑 㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻟㻕㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼠㼞㼛㼐㼡㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼠㼛㻌㼟㼜㼑㼏㼕㼍㼘㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼝㼡㼕㼞㼕㼑㼟㻌㼠㼛㻌㼍㼏㼍㼐㼑㼙㼕㼏㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼞㼍㼘㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑

㻟㻤㻚㻝㻑
㻝㻠㻚㻟㻑
㻤㻣㻚㻟㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕

㻡㻠㻚㻡㻑 㻖㻟㻞㻚㻤㻑 㻖㻥㻢㻚㻟㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕

㻯㼞㼑㼍㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼏㼘㼕㼜㼜㼕㼚㼓㻌㼙㼍㼠㼑㼞㼕㼍㼘㼟㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㼓㼛㼢㼑㼞㼚㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼛㼒㼒㼕㼏㼕㼍㼘㼟㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻌㼎㼡㼘㼘㼑㼠㼕㼚

㻝㻞㻚㻡㻑
㻠㻚㻣㻑
㻝㻡㻚㻥㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻢㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻢㻟㻕

㻞㻢㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻝㻤㻚㻜㻑 㻖㻟㻠㻚㻢㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻟㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻜㻕TABLE VI.

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻞㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻟㻠㻕SERVICES WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED IN OTHER CITIES㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㼟㻌㼣㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼟㼕㼓㼚㼕㼒㼕㼏㼍㼚㼠㻌㼐㼕㼒㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㼟㻌㼣㼑㼞㼑㻌㼛㼎㼟㼑㼞㼢㼑㼐㻰㻭㻿㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻸㻳㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻯㼞㼑㼍㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼜㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼓㼡㼕㼐㼑㼟㻌㼠㼛㻌㼔㼑㼘㼜㻌㼜㼍㼠㼞㼛㼚㼟㻌㼒㼕㼚㼐㻌㼕㼚㼒㼛㼞㼙㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻠㻟㻚㻟㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻜㻕㻟㻜㻚㻜㻑㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻢㻕㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻺㼛㼚㻙㼜㼞㼛㼒㼕㼠㻌㼛㼞㼓㼍㼚㼕㼦㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼛㼞㻌㼢㼛㼘㼡㼚㼠㼑㼑㼞㼟㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㻿㻺㻿㻝㻜㻚㻟㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻝㻢㻕㻝㻚㻢㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻞㻕

㻟㻚㻤㻑
㻜㻚㻝㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻟㻤㻥㻕㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻠㻕㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼡㼟㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼎㼘㼛㼓㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼡㼟㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼟㼜㼑㼏㼕㼒㼕㼏㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻝㻜㻚㻟㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻣㻤㻕㻞㻝㻚㻤㻑 㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻣㻤㻕

㻝㻚㻣㻑
㻝㻝㻚㻢㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻜㻢㻝㻕㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻜㻢㻝㻕㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼐㼑㼟㼗㼠㼛㼜㻌㼏㼛㼙㼜㼡㼠㼑㼞㼟㻞㻣㻚㻝㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻝㻝㻤㻕

㻝㻤㻚㻜㻑㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻟㻕㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼘㼍㼜㼠㼛㼜㻌㼏㼛㼙㼜㼡㼠㼑㼞㼟㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼣㼔㼕㼠㼑㼎㼛㼍㼞㼐㼟㻝㻝㻚㻜㻑 㻖㻝㻢㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻝㻝㻤㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻝㻤㻕

㻡㻚㻤㻑
㻝㻜㻚㻟㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻟㻕㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻟㻕㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼂㼕㼐㼑㼛㻛㻰㼂㻰㻌㼜㼘㼍㼥㼑㼞㼟㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼝㼡㼕㼞㼕㼑㼟㻌㼠㼛㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼙㼡㼚㼕㼏㼕㼜㼍㼘㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻌㼕㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼙㼡㼚㼕㼏㼕㼜㼍㼘㻌㼠㼛㻌㼣㼔㼕㼏㼔㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻌㼎㼑㼘㼛㼚㼓㻞㻤㻚㻤㻑 㻖㻠㻡㻚㻝㻑㻔㼚㻩㻝㻝㻤㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻞㻕

㻝㻥㻚㻢㻑㻡㻡㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻟㻕㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻜㻥㻕㻼㼡㼎㼘㼕㼏㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼑㼤㼍㼙㼜㼘㼑㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㼓㼛㼢㼑㼞㼚㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼛㼒㼒㼕㼏㼕㼍㼘㼟

㻝㻠㻚㻜㻑
㻟㻚㻠㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻝㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻝㻝㻢㻕

㻞㻠㻚㻝㻑 㻖㻥㻚㻤㻑 㻖

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻜㻕㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻟㻤㻥㻕㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼜㼡㼎㼘㼕㼏㼕㼠㼥㻌㼛㼒㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼘㼛㼏㼍㼘㻌㼓㼛㼢㼑㼞㼚㼙㼑㼚㼠㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼕㼚㼠㼞㼛㼐㼡㼏㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼠㼛㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼛㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻓㼟㻌㼃㼑㼎㼟㼕㼠㼑

㻤㻚㻞㻑
㻢㻞㻚㻞㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻝㻞㻞㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻥㻤㻕

㻝㻢㻚㻤㻑 㻖㻣㻠㻚㻝㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻠㻝㻠㻕㻔㼚㻩㻝㻘㻞㻝㻡㻕TABLE VII.

SERVICES WHERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE OBSERVED IN TOWNS/VILLAGES㻰㻭㻿㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㼟㻌㼣㼔㼑㼞㼑㻌㼟㼕㼓㼚㼕㼒㼕㼏㼍㼚㼠㻌㼐㼕㼒㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㼟㻌㼣㼑㼞㼑㻌㼛㼎㼟㼑㼞㼢㼑㼐㻸㻳㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼕㼑㼟㻭㼏㼏㼑㼜㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼝㼡㼑㼟㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼃㼑㼎㻌㼒㼛㼞㼙㻞㻡㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻞㻣㻕㻣㻚㻤㻑㻔㼚㻩㻟㻟㻟㻕

㻯㼞㼑㼍㼠㼕㼚㼓㻌㼘㼕㼟㼠㼟㻌㼛㼒㻌㼘㼕㼚㼗㼟㻌㼠㼛㻌㼡㼟㼑㼒㼡㼘㻌㼕㼚㼒㼛㼞㼙㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼃㼑㼎㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㻺㼛㼚㻙㼜㼞㼛㼒㼕㼠㻌㼛㼞㼓㼍㼚㼕㼦㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻌㼛㼞㻌㼢㼛㼘㼡㼚㼠㼑㼑㼞㼟㻟㻡㻚㻡㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕㻝㻥㻚㻠㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕

㻝㻟㻚㻝㻑
㻡㻚㻞㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻟㻡㻤㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻠㻥㻕

㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼏㼛㼜㼥㻌㼙㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼑㼟㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㻿㻰㻵㻌㻔㻿㼑㼘㼑㼏㼠㼕㼢㼑㻌㻰㼕㼟㼟㼑㼙㼕㼚㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㻵㼚㼒㼛㼞㼙㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻕㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻢㻠㻚㻡㻑 㻖㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕㻝㻞㻚㻥㻑 㻖 㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕

㻟㻣㻚㻡㻑
㻟㻚㻠㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻟㻢㻜㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻡㻣㻕

㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㼜㼞㼕㼢㼍㼠㼑㻌㼏㼛㼙㼜㼍㼚㼕㼑㼟㻌㼛㼞㻌㼎㼡㼟㼕㼚㼑㼟㼟㻌㼜㼑㼛㼜㼘㼑㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼟㼡㼜㼜㼛㼞㼠㻌㼒㼛㼞㻌㼟㼜㼑㼏㼕㼒㼕㼏㻌㼓㼞㼛㼡㼜㼟㻝㻞㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻟㻡㻚㻡㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕㻟㻚㻞㻑㻝㻢㻚㻢㻑㻔㼚㻩㻟㻠㻥㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻠㻥㻕

㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼜㼍㼙㼜㼔㼘㼑㼠㻤㻜㻚㻢㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕

㻡㻡㻚㻝㻑㻔㼚㻩㻟㻡㻞㻕

㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㼢㼕㼍㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㼘㼕㼎㼞㼍㼞㼥㻓㼟㻌㼃㼑㼎㼟㼕㼠㼑㻼㼞㼛㼙㼛㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㼛㼒㻌㼞㼑㼒㼑㼞㼑㼚㼏㼑㻌㼟㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻠㻝㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻥㻟㻚㻡㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕

㻞㻟㻚㻟㻑
㻣㻟㻚㻥㻑

㻔㼚㻩㻟㻡㻞㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻡㻞㻕

㻹㼍㼗㼕㼚㼓㻌㼡㼟㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼎㼘㼛㼓㻼㼞㼛㼢㼕㼐㼕㼚㼓㻌㼘㼍㼜㼠㼛㼜㻌㼏㼛㼙㼜㼡㼠㼑㼞㼟㻝㻤㻚㻞㻑 㻖㻝㻞㻚㻥㻑 㻖㻔㼚㻩㻞㻞㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻝㻕㻠㻚㻞㻑㻟㻚㻟㻑㻔㼚㻩㻝㻥㻜㻕
㻔㼚㻩㻟㻢㻜㻕

41

TABLE VIII.

answers for themselves. In addition, we found that DAS
libraries received more reference questions per resident thanLG libraries, and that the NRQ tended to increase after the
introduction of DAS. DAS libraries’ indirect support tendency
and LG libraries’ direct answer tendency were particularly
strong in annex libraries. Finally, DAS libraries in towns andvillages appear to be providing excellent reference services.

MEAN AND MEDIAN OF NRQ

In the future, we aim to examine the cause of thedifferences between DAS and LG libraries and also examine
the typical user type suitable to each library. In addition, we
intend to examine the differences in reference services
between DAS and LG libraries with regard to issues such as
employee awareness, policy, and training. Furthermore, we
hope to focus not only on reference services but also on otherlibrary services, such as book selection and loan services tousers, so as to clarify in greater detail the impact of switching
to DAS on Japanese libraries.

C. Analysis of time series data
Table IX shows the mean, median, maximum, andminimum IRs (by percentage) for DAS and LG libraries,
overall and for each type. “N” for DAS libraries represents thenumber of libraries and “N (total)” for LG libraries represents
the total number of samples for each year.

[1]

[2]

The mean and median IRs for DAS libraries were 552.0%
and 20.7%, respectively, whereas those for LG libraries were
182.0% and 1.5%, respectively. These results suggest that the
NRQ tends to increase after the introduction of DAS. The
mean and median IRs were over 10% in both main and annex
DAS libraries and each type of municipalities as well. We canconclude that all types of libraries tend to experience anincrease in NRQ after entering DAS.

[3]

The median IR for DAS libraries in towns and villages was
61.3%, the highest among the four types of municipalities.
This value is quite notable when compared with that of LG
libraries, which had a negative IR (–3.7%). As previously
mentioned, DAS libraries in towns and villages outperformed
LG libraries in both indirect support tendency and direct
answer tendency; their NRQs are also considerably higher thanthose of LG libraries. These results suggest that DAS libraries
in towns and villages are providing superior services and arefavorably accepted by users.

[5]

[4]

[6]

[7]

V. CONCLUSIONS[8]

The results of our investigation showed that LG libraries
tend to answer users’ questions directly, whereas DAS
libraries tend to develop environments where users can find
TABLE IX.

National Diet Library. Issues and Perspectives on Reference Services in
Libraries of Japan, NDL Research Report No.14, 2013. http://
current.ndl.go.jp/report/no14, (accessed 2016-03-01).
Japan Library Association. Statistics on Libraries in Japan, 2003-2014.
(text in Japanese)
N. Koyama and H. Nagata. Report on Public Library Management,
2008, 34p. http://www.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp/grad/assets/files/project/h19/
report.pdf, (accessed 2016-03-01). (text in Japanese).
H. Maeda. "A Study on the Actual State of Introduction of Designation
Administrator System to Public Libraries," Summaries of TechnicalPapers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of Japan. E-1,
Architectural Planning and Design I, Building Types and Community
Facilities, Planning and Design Method Building Construction System
Human Factor Studies Planning and Design Theory 2007, 2007,
pp.109-110. (text in Japanese).
Committee on library policies of Japan Library Association. "Results of
the questionnaire on introduction of designated management system inlibraries," Libraries Today, 2007, 45(1), pp. 41-51. (text in Japanese).
Japan Library Association. Report about Public Libraries Managed by
Designated Administrator System in 2012, 2012. http://www.jla.or.jp/
Portals/0/images/committe/torikumi/sitei2012.pdf, (accessed 2016-0301). (text in Japanese).
In Japan, city is defined as a municipality that has a poulation over
50,000 and especially "ordinance-designated city" is defined as a citythat has a population greater than 500,000. "Tokyo special wards" are23 municipalities that have highest population density in Japan. Towns
and villages are the other municipalities, which are smaller than theothers: cities and Tokyo special wards.
Japan Library Association. Report about Public Libraries Managed by
Designated Administrator System of 2015, 2015. http://www.jla.or.jp/
Portals/0/images/committe/torikumi/sitei2015.pdf, (accessed 2016-0301). (text in Japanese).

THE INCREASE RATES (%) OF NRQ

42