Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

The 2nd International Conference on Integrated Information

Double-bounded Dichotomous Choice CVM for Public LibraryServices in Japan
Atsushi Ikeuchia*, Keita Tsujia, Fuyuki Yoshikanea, Ui IkeuchibaFaculty of Library, Information and Media Studies, University of Tsukuba, 1-2 Kasuga, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki-ken 305-8550, Japan
Graduate School of Library, Information and Media Studies, University of Tsukuba, 1-2 Kasuga, Tsukuba-city, Ibaraki-ken 305-8550, JapanbAbstract
Under the recent severe financial situation, it is more important that central and local governments justify their publicinvestments than ever. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is often used for this problem. However, CBA has not been done on
public library services in Japan. The aim of this study is to conduct double-bounded dichotomous choice CVM (contingentvaluation method) and to validate applicability and effectiveness of this method. The result shows that respondents are willingto pay about 350 JPY per library-use on average. Moreover, household income and frequency of public library use
significantly affect their willingness to pay.
© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of The 2nd International Conference on Integrated Information.
Keywords: public libraries; contingent valuation method; cost-benefit analysis; library evaluation

1. Introduction
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is classical research interest in library and information science [1][2][3][4][5]. To
conduct CBA, benefits should be measured in the same unit of costs. However, it is difficult to estimate themonetary value of non-market goods that do not have price like environmental resources or library services.
Flowerdew & Whitehead (1974) pointed out “despite much interesting work, no really satisfactory cost/benefit
study has yet been carried out” [6]. After 19 years since then, Lancaster (1993) also described similar opinion as
below [7].
Cost-benefit analyses are very difficult to perform in the information service environment and perhaps nostudy of this kind has ever been fully credible. Nevertheless, one way or another, libraries and other* Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-29-859-1345; fax: +81-29-859-1093.
E-mail address: atsushi@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

information centers must justify their existence, so the benefits of their services, even if they seem rather
nebulous, cannot be ignored in evaluative studies.
In addition, Lancaster mentioned that more attempts at cost-benefit analysis have been applied to industrial
libraries than to libraries other kinds (e.g. public, school and academic) [7].
On the other hands, Aabø (2009) insists that new research field (library valuation research) has evolved fromwider research area library management and economics, and the number of library valuation studies and return on
investment (ROI) studies has considerably increased since the latter half of 1990 [8]. Some review articles havebeen already published on this field [9][10][11][12][13]. Moreover, Aabø reports that 32 of the 38 reviewed
library valuation studies are of public libraries. Under the recent global economic recession and severe financial
constraints, it is more important that national governments and municipalities justify their public investments
than before.
Various techniques have been developed for valuing non-market goods especially in the field ofenvironmental economics and agricultural economics. Those are categorized by two main approaches. One is‘revealed preference method (RPM)’ and the other is ‘stated preference method (SPM)’. Travel cost method(TCM) and hedonic price method (HPM) are representative approaches in RPM. CVM and conjoint analysis aretypical in SPM. Although CVM is often applied to estimate monetary values of public library services, there are afew examples in Japan [14][15]. Then, the aim of this study is to conduct double-bounded dichotomous choice
CVM and to validate applicability and effectiveness of this method for public libraries in Japan.
2. Methods
On March 2012, Subjects were recruited through an internet research company. Gender-balance, age
composition and frequency of public library use were taken into account on the screening stage. As a result,
1,108 respondents were selected by stratified multistage sampling method. Table 1 shows respondents’demographic attributes and their library usage.
First of all, respondents who have used public library at least once in the past year were asked to answer theirsatisfaction level of public libraries that they usually use. According to table 2, ‘satisfied’ is most selected on
every aspect of public libraries.
In contingent valuation surveys, subjects are directly asked their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) or
maximum willingness to accept compensation (WTA) of non-market goods. WTP is generally more conservative
than WTA. NOAA panel on contingent valuation (1993) recommends to using WTP, because a conservative
design increases the reliability of the estimate by eliminating extreme responses [16].
Table 1. Overview of respondents' features
GenderFemaleMale

not marriedHousehold income (YEN)

Frequency of public library use

20s

244 (22.0%)

under 2 millions

47 (4.2%)

several times a month

249 (67.3%)

554 (50.0%)30s

222 (20.0%)

under 4 millions

232 (20.9%)

at least once a month

123 (32.7%)40s

210 (19.0%)

under 6 millions

262 (23.6%)

at least once half year

193 (17.4%)

746 (67.3%)50s

260 (23.8%)

under 8 millions

171 (15.3%)

at least once a year

179 (58.9%)362 (32.7%)60s or over

168 (15.2%)

under 10 millions

116 (10.5%)

not use the past year

297 (41.1%)

over 10 millions

89 (8.0%)

N/A

181 (17.2)

Marital status
MarriedAge

554 (50.0%)

Childhave a child

653 (58.9%)

not have a child

455 (41.1%)

Never

67 (6.0%)

Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000
Table 2. Results of public library user satisfaction
Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

NeutralSatisfied

Very Satisfied(1) Amount of materials

36 (4.8%)204 (27.4)

171 (23.0%)299 (40.2%)

34 (4.6%)(2) Quality of materials

29 (3.9%)163 (21.9%)203 (27.3%)

316 (42.5%)

33 (4.4%)(3) Staff service

14 (1.9%)

59 (7.9%)

196 (26.3%)

405 (54.4%)

70 (9.4%)(4) Open hours

22 (3.0%)151 (20.3%)

148 (19.9%)382 (51.3%)

41 (5.5%)(5) Open days

16 (2.2%)

93 (12.5%)

170 (22.8%)413 (55.5%)

52 (7.0%)(6) Overall satisfaction

8 (1.1%)109 (14.7%)

171 (23.0%)

417 (56.0%)

39 (5.2%)

There are three types of payment vehicles in contingent valuation survey, which are (1) tax, (2) donation and(3) charge. In this study, we employ ‘charge’ for library admission fee because of attempting to estimate moreconservative results. Each respondent is shown one of the two types of library service models (see table 3). For
double-bounded dichotomous choice CVM, respondents are asked whether they are willing to pay or not atpresented price. If a respondent accepts to pay the price, the higher price is displayed next. If a respondent rejects
to pay the price, the lower price is displayed. We have determined these prices by reference to actual fee of othercultural facilities as well as average costs of public libraries.
Table 3. Two types of library service models
Library type 1

Library type 2

Book stock

500,000 volumes

100,000 volumes

Magazine stock

500 titles

100 titles

Library hours

10:00 - 20:00 (10 hours)

10:00 - 18:00 (8 hours)

Material loan limit

20 volumes

10 volumes

Material loan period

3 weeks

2 weeks

Table 4. Response results of library type 1
1st bid

2nd bid(upper)

2nd bid(lower)

500 JPY

750 JPY

250 JPY

1,000 JPY

1,250 JPY

750 JPY1,500 JPY

2,000 JPY

1,000 JPY

Y/Y

Y/N

N/Y

N/N

8(4.3%)
3(1.6%)
4(2.2%)

41(22.2%)15(8.2%)8(4.3%)

28(15.1%)
1(0.5%)
22(11.9%)108(58.4%)
165(89.7%)
151(81.6%)

Totalrespondents
185(100%)
184(100%)
185(100%)

Table 5. Response results of library type 2
1st bid

2nd bid(upper)

2nd bid(lower)

500 JPY

750 JPY

250 JPY

1,000 JPY

1,250 JPY

750 JPY

1,500 JPY

2,000 JPY

1,000 JPY

Y/Y

Y/N

N/Y

N/N

5(2.7%)
5(2.7%)
3(1.6%)

38(20.5%)8(4.3%)
8(4.3%)

32(17.31%)
5(2.7%)
14(7.6%)110(59.5%)
166(90.2%)160(86.5%)

Totalrespondents
185(100%)
184(100%)
185(100%)

Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2012) 000–000

3. Results
Table 4 and table 5 show overview of response results. Y denotes acceptance to pay at the presented price, andN denotes reject to pay. The WTP data resulting from the dichotomous choice questions can be analyzed byeither a parametric or a nonparametric approach. In this study, we conducted a parametric approach andestimated WTP by survival analysis with Weibull function. As a result, mean WTP of library type 1 is 374.9 yen
and median is 222.4 yen. On the other hand, mean WTP of library type 2 is 340.4 yen and median is 200.1 yen.
There is no statistically significant difference between type1 and type 2. In terms of relationship between
respondents’ attributes and WTP, household income and frequency of public library use significantly affect theirWTP.
4. Conclusion
In this study, we conducted double-bounded dichotomous choice CVM and attempted to validated
applicability and effectiveness of this method. The result showed that respondents are willing to pay about 350
JPY per library-use on average. household income and frequency of public library use significantly affect theirWTP.

References[1] Wilson, J. H., Jr. (1972). Cost, budgeting, and economics of information processing. In C. A. Cuadra (Eds.), Annual Review ofInformation Science and Technology, vol.7, (pp. 52-55) Washington, D. C.: American Society for Information Science.
[2] Cooper, M. D. (1973). The economics of information. In C. A. Cusadra (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
vol.8, (pp.17–20) Washington, D. C.: American Society for Information Science.
[3] Hindle, A., & Raper, D. (1976). The economics of information. In M.E. Williams (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science andTechnology, vol.11, (pp. 34–37) Washington, D.C.: American Society for Information Science.
[4] Van House, N. A. (1984). Research on the economics of libraries. Library Trends, 32(4), 407 – 423.
[5] Repo, A. J. (1987). The Economics of Information. In M.E. Williams (Eds.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
vol.22, (pp. 14–22) Washington, D.C.: American Society for Information Science.
[6] Flowerdew, A. D. J. & Whitehead, C. M. E. (1974). Cost-effectiveness and cost/benefit analysis in information science. (pp.36-47)
London: London School of Economics and Political Science. (OSTI Report 5206).
[7] Lancaster, F. W. (1993). If you want to evaluate your library…. (2nd ed.). London: Library Association, (Chapter 15).
[8] Aabø, S. (2009). Libraries and return on investment (ROI): a meta-analysis. New Library World, 110(7/8), 311 - 324.
[9] McCallum, I., & Quinn, S. (2004). Valuing libraries. The Australian Library Journal, 53(1), 55-69.
[10] Missingham, R. (2005). Libraries and economic value: a review of recent studies. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 6(3), 142 -158.
[11] Imholz, S., & Arns, J. W. (2007). Worth their weight: an assessment of the evolving field of library valuation. New York: American forlibraries Council.
[12] Elliott, D. S., Holt, G. E., Hayden, S. W., & Holt, L. E. (2007). Measuring your library's value : how to do a cost-benefit analysis foryour public library. Chicago: American Library Association.
[13] Kim, G. (2011). A critical review of valuation of studies to identify framework in library services. Library & Information ScienceResearch, 33(2), 112-117.
[14] Yokota, T., Kashihara, S., Yoshimura, H., & Sakata, K. (2002). An applicability of CVM for analyzing residents’ consciousness into
construction project of public cultural facilities. Journal of architecture, planning and enviromental engineering : transactions of AIJ.
(553), 155 – 162.
[15] Ikeuchi, A. (2004). Economic evaluation for public library services by contingent valuation method. Journal of the Japan Society of
Library and Information Science, 49(3), 89-107. (Text in Japanese)[16] Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R. & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation.
Federal Register, 58(10), 4601 - 4614.