A decentralized,community-led library for diasporic communities: The case of the Hong Kong BookShare in the UK

Abstract

Since 2021, the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers in the UK under the British National (Overseas) Visa Scheme has created a significant demand for Traditional Chinese books and reading materials. Conventional community libraries have struggled to meet these diasporic information needs, largely due to geographic dispersion. This article examines the Hong Kong Books Borrowing and Sharing Centre (HK BookShare), a decentralized, community-led library system operating on sharing economy principles. By January 2025, the platform had amassed over 1600 titles, serving users across 86 cities and towns. Drawing on interviews with the founder and users, digital walkthroughs, and descriptive statistics, this study explores how digital technologies and HK BookShare’s operational model address diasporic information needs while challenging traditional library frameworks. The findings highlight HK BookShare’s effectiveness in providing broad access, user-friendly services, and a diverse collection but also reveal key challenges related to volunteerism, social trust, and algorithmic design. This article argues that physical libraries and sharing economy models can be mutually reinforcing, rather than opposing, in meeting the diverse information needs of new immigrants. By contributing to the discourse on migrant information needs, community-managed libraries, and digital platforms, this study offers both academic insight and practical implications for future initiatives.

Introduction

In August 2021, Interviewee B embarked on a journey to London from Hong Kong using the British National (Overseas) visa (BN(O) visa) with the intention of settling there long-term. Given this plan, he kept his personal belongings minimal and lightweight, as most items could be easily replaced. The biggest challenge, however, was figuring out how to handle his extensive home library. After cataloging around 400 books, he decided to ship them to the UK. He and his friends spent a week sorting and packing them, eventually sending the boxes to his new home. The cost exceeded that of a one-way ticket with British Airways during the Covid-19 pandemic, yet it was deemed an essential expense. Interviewee B’s story underscores that this massive wave of migration involved not only people but also objects and carriers of knowledge. Since the UK government introduced the BN(O) visa scheme in January 2021, many Hongkongers engaged in similar practices, sending their books across the ocean to various parts of the UK. ¹

As a researcher specializing in book culture, a former librarian, and a Hongkonger who has settled in London for nearly 4 years, I have experienced these concerns firsthand. My own migration, shaped by my desire to maintain access to content in my mother tongues, prompted me to critically examine fundamental concepts in library and information science. This personal and scholarly perspective informs my inquiry into how diasporic communities navigate bibliodiversity, access, and cultural preservation. Existing scholarship has extensively analyzed the role of libraries in fostering cultural and linguistic diversity through various mechanisms, including collection development (Faletar Tanackovic et al., 2011), diversity initiatives (Leong, 2023), and technological advancements such as machine translation (Bowker, 2021). The concept of bibliodiversity, which likens writers and publishers to “the inhabitants of an ecosystem,” underscores the role of literary diversity in fostering “a thriving cultural life and a healthy ecosocial system” (Hawthorne, 2014: 3). This framework has gained increasing prominence in library and information science discourse (Ryan, 2022) and has been incorporated into collection development and funding policies (Penn Libraries News, 2023). Discussing diversity is crucial because libraries have traditionally played a vital role in helping immigrants integrate into their new communities, serving as “the gate to understanding” (Jönsson-Lanevska, 2005) and as essential venues for the creation of social capital (Vårheim, 2011).

However, my personal migration experiences highlighted that beyond librarianship expertise such as cataloging and acquisition, bibliodiversity is not only a matter of cultural politics but also entails significant logistical and infrastructural challenges. Librarians may be required to manage the complexities of procuring books from international sources and ensuring sufficient shelving to accommodate these geographically fixed collections. The precarious and dispersed nature of diasporic communities exacerbates this issue. For instance, Hong Kong immigrants are spread across multiple cities, including London, Edinburgh, Manchester, and Nottingham. My question is how the information needs of diasporic communities can be addressed amidst precarity and material constraints. Hong Kong immigrants are not an isolated case in an increasingly globalized world, where transnational migration has become commonplace. As Weir (2019) highlights in her study of the Lithuanian-American community, cultural heritage institutions, such as libraries and archives, have long struggled to collect and represent diaspora heritage. In response to these challenges, she advocates for Web 2.0 technologies, including digital collections and platforms, as tools for preserving cultural identity. Meanwhile, despite various forms of marginalization, diasporic communities have demonstrated resilience and agency through self-mobilized actions, ranging from collaborative knowledge production (Constant and Zimmermann, 2016) to diasporic activism (Moss, 2022) beyond the realm of information studies.

This article contributes to ongoing discussions on bibliodiversity, community-managed libraries, and diasporic communities by examining the case of the Hong Kong Books Borrowing and Sharing Centre in the UK (HK BookShare). Established by new Hong Kong immigrants in the UK, this initiative represents an innovative, community-led approach to book sharing. The project creatively utilizes the principles of the sharing economy to develop a decentralized, community-led library system. The model combines an online platform with the physical exchange of books, where sharers mail books from their personal collections to borrowers using the national postal system. Unlike digital lending models that involve scanning books, this system facilitates the circulation of physical materials within a decentralized network. Through interviews with volunteers and users, digital walkthroughs, descriptive statistics of usage data, and my own reflections as both a sharer and borrower, this article presents a case study that serves as a proof-of-concept experiment. It examines both the opportunities and limitations of applying sharing economy principles to community-led library services, thereby broadening the conceptualization of libraries in a networked age.

Community-managed libraries and its potential digital turn

Recent scholarship has increasingly re-evaluated the role of librarianship in community engagement, recognizing libraries as dynamic hubs where individuals gather and access essential information (Aabø et al., 2010). Some scholars advocate for a more democratic approach, emphasizing that librarians not only facilitate information access (Stilwell, 2018) but also actively engage the public in addressing community issues (Kranich, 2020). This evolving role includes fostering social inclusion and equity, linking resources with local initiatives, and enhancing socio-economic vitality (Scott, 2011). Studies on library-led community engagement range from broad thematic analyses (Sung et al., 2013) ) to insider perspectives on implementation (Baba and Abrizah, 2018; Hapel, 2020). Many of these models emerge from local experiences, resulting in innovative practices (Singh et al., 2022). ² Existing literature highlights libraries’ critical role in supporting marginalized communities, including rural residents (Reid and Howard, 2016) and Indigenous peoples (Blackburn, 2017). Migrants, in particular, rely on branch libraries as “arrival infrastructure,” where they access language classes, community news, and essential settlement resources (Wessendorf, 2022). Further, Vårheim (2014) demonstrates how library programs for refugees can foster social trust and accelerate integration, reinforcing the broader role of public libraries in community-building and social cohesion.

While traditional libraries play a crucial role in serving marginalized communities, community-managed libraries, meanwhile, have emerged as alternative models, offering decentralized, volunteer-driven approaches to knowledge access. These initiatives challenge traditional library structures, operating through community-driven models that emphasize local engagement and participatory governance. Often managed by volunteers or grassroots organizations, they have arisen partly due to neoliberal austerity policies, which have led to significant funding cuts and the transfer of many UK branch libraries out of local authority control (Casselden et al., 2019; Smith, 2019). A County Councils Network (2024) study reports a 25% decrease in government expenditure on library services in England between 2010 and 2024, amounting to £232.5 million in cuts. In some regions, particularly rural areas, traditional library services have become increasingly inefficient, further driving reliance on volunteer-led models (Colibaba et al., 2019). Beyond necessity, some socially engaged individuals see community-managed libraries as activist spaces, using them to amplify marginalized voices and resist institutional structures perceived as exclusionary, as seen in projects like the Queer Zine Library in the UK and Queer Reads Library in Hong Kong (Tong, 2024). Similarly, the global spread of “Little Free Libraries” exemplifies hyper-local, accessible book exchanges, although their impact remains limited by scale and resources (Sarmiento et al., 2018). While scholars recognize these initiatives’ contributions to filling service gaps (Blackburn, 2017), they also highlight sustainability challenges, particularly volunteer dependence and resource constraints (Colibaba et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is crucial to avoid romanticizing participatory models as inherently democratic, as self-censorship and social capital dynamics can shape access and representation (Kozak, 2019). ³ Many of these projects remain constrained by territoriality, making it difficult to scale beyond their immediate communities, a challenge particularly relevant to diasporic populations such as those examined in this study.

I aim to contribute to the ongoing discussion on how digital technologies can advance community practices. Since the early days of the internet, librarians have explored virtual libraries (Robertson and Reese, 1999) and social media platforms (Young and Rossmann, 2015) to facilitate community engagement and knowledge sharing. This article focuses on a specific digital phenomenon: the sharing economy. Defined as “an economic model based on sharing underutilized assets, from spaces to skills, for monetary or non-monetary benefits” (Botsman, 2013), sharing economy platforms function as “matchmakers,” connecting producers and consumers through digital infrastructures that enable exchange and participation (Evans and Schmalensee, 2016). Initially associated with corporate models like Uber and Airbnb, the sharing economy has expanded into the nonprofit and public sectors, emphasizing solidarity and reciprocity over financial transactions (Katrini, 2018). Scholars have noted its potential as a “free-market force” that repurposes digital platforms for socially beneficial outcomes (Mancha et al., 2022: 922). Examples include organic farming knowledge-sharing networks in Taiwan (Lai et al., 2020), nonprofit ride-sharing in Texas (Mancha et al., 2022), and collaborative welfare service delivery in the UK (Cheetham and Lever, 2021). However, despite its egalitarian goals, the nonprofit sharing economy faces structural challenges (Ganapati and Reddick, 2018). Critics argue it can reinforce inequalities, create new class divisions, and widen digital divides (Eichhorn et al., 2022). Concerns also arise regarding security, trust, and data privacy, particularly in relation to digital footprints and algorithmic governance (Lutz et al., 2018).

Building on existing models of community-managed libraries and the sharing economy, this study explores their feasibility in addressing the service gaps experienced by migrant communities. While community-managed libraries face challenges related to territoriality, sustainability, and volunteer dependency, digital sharing economy frameworks present new opportunities for overcoming these limitations. However, as literature on the nonprofit sharing economy suggests, such approaches also come with risks, including digital inequalities, security concerns, and potential exclusions. By analyzing the HK BookShare as a case study, this research examines whether digitally enabled, peer-to-peer book-sharing initiatives can serve as viable alternatives to traditional library services for diasporic communities. In doing so, it contributes to broader discussions on bibliodiversity, community engagement, and the evolving role of libraries in an increasingly networked age.

Methods

This study examines the HK BookShare in the UK as a case study to explore how a volunteer-managed digital platform, operating on the principles of the sharing economy, facilitates book sharing among Hong Kong migrants. The HK BookShare serves as a “revelatory case study” (Yin, 2014), offering an opportunity to examine a unique initiative that leverages digital platforms to address the information needs of diasporic communities.

To develop a triangulated case study, I draw on four primary data sources: interviews, participatory observation, digital walkthroughs, and descriptive statistics from internal system usage data. Between April 2023 and January 2025, I conducted eight semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in HK BookShare, including one founder, one core volunteer, and six borrower-sharers. The founder was interviewed twice to capture both the platform’s initial vision and its evolution. Most interviews were conducted in Cantonese via Microsoft Teams due to the geographic dispersion of participants across multiple UK cities. Interview length ranged from 45 minutes to 1.5 hours, depending on the participant’s role and level of engagement. All interviews were recorded with consent and later transcribed verbatim for analysis. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling, beginning with key informants within the Hong Kong diasporic community, allowing access to hard-to-reach networks in this fluid, decentralized system. I have attached the Appendix 1 to summarizes participant demographics for additional context. As an active sharer, I have shared approximately 200 books, borrowed from other sharers, and participated in discussions within the internal Signal group for volunteers. To systematically document these interactions, I maintained a research diary (Hyers, 2018), recording fieldnotes on user engagement, platform governance, and personal reflections on the lending process. This insider perspective provided deep contextual understanding and privileged access to internal data, while also requiring reflexivity to mitigate researcher bias.

I analyzed interview transcripts and research diary entries using grounded theory coding techniques (Charmaz, 2014), beginning with line-by-line coding to identify emergent patterns, followed by focused coding to develop broader thematic categories. The iterative nature of this approach ensured that findings emerged directly from participant narratives rather than being shaped by pre-existing theories. As grounded theory prioritizes inductive reasoning, this study does not adopt a fixed theoretical framework but instead allows insights to develop from the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). While the literature review contextualizes community-managed libraries and the sharing economy, additional theoretical perspectives are introduced in the discussion section, where they directly engage with the study’s findings. This data-driven approach avoids imposing predefined categories while still situating the research within broader academic conversations.

To complement user perspectives, I employed the walkthrough method (Light et al., 2018) to systematically examine the platform’s vision, design, operations, and governance. This method involved a step-by-step engagement with the book-sharing system, from registration to borrowing and lending. By analyzing its affordances, constraints, and underlying assumptions, the walkthrough method offered insights into how technology structures user interactions. I also analyzed descriptive statistics from HK BookShare’s internal system usage data to assess its scope and reach. This dataset includes the total number of listed books, borrowing activity, and the geographic distribution of users across UK cities from January 2023 to January 2025. By integrating quantitative data, I contextualize the platform’s scale and operational patterns, offering an empirical basis for evaluating its effectiveness as a community-managed library model.

As both a researcher and active participant, I recognize the potential influence of insider positionality on data interpretation. To ensure rigor and credibility, I adopted a reflexive approach, critically assessing my role and potential biases throughout the research process. Additionally, triangulation across interviews, digital walkthroughs, fieldnotes, and usage statistics strengthened the validity of findings by incorporating multiple perspectives and data sources (Denzin, 2012).

The founding of the HK BookShare

In 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress enacted the Hong Kong National Security Law in response to the anti-extradition bill protests. Legal scholars argue that this legislation has severely undermined Hong Kong’s rule of law and its status as a relatively liberal-democratic enclave within China (Chopra and Pils, 2022: 292). Its enactment prompted direct responses from Western nations, leading to the introduction of new visa programs for Hong Kong residents seeking to leave. On January 31, 2021, the UK government launched a new immigration pathway for BN(O) holders, allowing them and their dependents to reside, work, and study in the UK. By May 2024, 201,877 Hongkongers had relocated to the UK under the BN(O) visa scheme (Hong Kong Watch, 2024).

In July 2022, The Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers published a research report summarizing the demographics of BN(O) migrants arriving in the UK (Rolfe and Chan, 2022). ⁴ Surveys indicate that the majority of Hongkongers in the UK fall within the 35–44 and 45–54 age brackets, reflecting the demographic most likely to hold BN(O) citizenship, as they were born during Hong Kong’s population boom from the 1960s to the 1980s. Smaller proportions belong to the 25–34 and 55–64 age groups, while only 4% are aged over 65, suggesting a limited number of older dependents. Additionally, the report suggests that over two-thirds (69%) of BN(O) migrants hold degree-level qualifications or higher. The report also cites data from the Home Office indicates that 72% of BN(O) migrants in the UK are married, and 60% have at least one child, with the majority of children under the age of 15. These demographic characteristics underscore the distinct library needs of BN(O) migrants. The high level of educational attainment among this group suggests a strong demand for academic and professional resources, while the prevalence of families with young children highlights the need for children’s literature and educational support materials.

Interviewee A, the founder of “HK BookShare,” is among this cohort of BN(O) migrants. During our interview, he humbly described themselves as “an ordinary white-collar worker with no experience in publishing, academia, or library-related work.” In Hong Kong, he frequently visited libraries with his children to borrow books and support their language learning. Upon immigrating to the UK, his primary concern was children’s education:

I wondered, if we (my family) came to the UK and had no access to Chinese books, what would we do? I realized this wasn’t just my problem but a challenge faced by every Hongkonger moving to the UK. If children don’t read Chinese books, they can’t continue learning the language . . .

This realization led him to explore ways of bringing traditional Chinese books to the UK and making them accessible to the community. ⁵ Initially, he considered partnering with local libraries or placing books in Hongkonger-owned shops. However, after arriving, he recognized the vast geographical spread of Hongkongers across the UK, making a physical library impractical. He also estimated that “other Hongkongers likely brought books with them to the UK,” reinforcing his determination to establish an online library and expand its collection through a book-sharing model.

HK BookShare was established in February 2023. According to its official website (n.d.), it identifies as a non-profit group in the UK, offering borrowing and sharing services for books related to Hong Kong or written in Traditional Chinese. Framing itself as a library, it describes its function as “a public library, allowing all readers in the UK to borrow books from our online platform” (Rolfe and Chan, 2022). The HK BookShare accepts “Hong Kong-related books in any language” and “Traditional Chinese books on any subject” but excludes those containing or promoting “pornography, violence, terrorism, extremism, or totalitarianism.” Additionally, it does not accept books that are “heavily used, stained, damaged, or scratched.” The project began with approximately 310 books brought by Interviewee A from Hong Kong to London. Public interest grew rapidly after a reporter shared the website on Facebook, leading to 50 volunteer book contributions and 50 books lent out through the system within the first 2 months. By January 2025, HK BookShare remains without a formal organizational structure. Interviewee A primarily maintains and operates the system, while be invited seven other active borrowers/sharers to a Signal chat group, they assist occasionally, mainly with promotional advice and data entry.

Digital walkthrough of the HK BookShare

This digital walkthrough examines the operational model of HK BookShare from the perspectives of both borrowers and sharers. A key aspect is the website hosting system. During the interview, Interviewee A noted his lack of expertise in computer coding or web development tools like WordPress, leading him to choose BigCommerce—a platform offering online store creation, search engine optimization, and hosting services. As a result, the HK BookShare website follows an e-commerce design, repurposing product description fields for book metadata and transaction records to track borrowing activity. According to Interviewee A, this setup offers several advantages: it simplifies management for non-digital natives, facilitates easy cataloging of books, and allows straightforward tracking of borrowing data. However, my observations suggest that limited customization could restrict user interface improvements and functionality adjustments to better serve library users. Despite this, Interviewee A expressed overall satisfaction with the platform’s searchability and basic functions, estimating the annual operational cost of the online system at approximately £447 by January 2025.

Similar to conventional libraries, the first step in using HK BookShare is registration (Figure 1). Any UK resident can sign up via the website through a standard web-form, which interviewees described as straightforward (Interviewee C, D, E, F, H). Users provide their name, email, postal address, and phone number and must agree to the terms of use regarding privacy and data protection before submitting the form. ⁶ Upon registration, the system sends an email confirmation to the user and notifies Interviewee A, who verifies new members through a phone call when they borrow a book for the first time. This call serves to reiterate borrowing rules and confirm that a genuine recipient exists. Interviewee A does not verify real names, and some users register with initials or pseudonyms, possibly for privacy reasons. However, despite this, he is generally able to confirm users’ legitimacy.

Figure 1.

The users’ registration form of HK book center, by september 19, 2024.

Several interviewees (Interviewees B, C, D, and E, H) described HK BookShare as user-friendly and intuitive from a borrower’s perspective. The website provides basic search functionalities, organizes books by genre, and employs a tagging system that highlights key terms, including prominent politicians and historical events. Unlike traditional library catalogs, which focus on text-based records, HK BookShare presents its catalog in a photo grid format similar to Instagram, displaying only book covers, titles, and authors (Figure 2). Clicking on a book reveals additional bibliographic details, including ISBN, page count, language, and content description. When available, the site also links to preview pages, typically via Google Play, or related digital materials, such as YouTube videos. Newly registered members can borrow or reserve up to three books at a time, unless they contribute books to the system, in which case their borrowing limit could be unlocked. To borrow a book, users click “Borrow/Reserve,” adding it to their “Borrowing Cart” before proceeding to checkout (Figure 3). After confirming their email, shipping address, and agreement to terms and conditions, they complete the process by clicking “Place Order.” The system then generates an order number and sends an automatic confirmation message to the borrower.

Figure 2.

The interface of the HK BookShare’s catalog by september 19, 2024.

Figure 3.

The interface of the HK BookShare’s borrowing cart by september 19, 2024.

Individuals interested in sharing books may access the “Share Your Books” section of the website, where a form prompts them to enter key details, including title, author, page count, ISBN, language, weight, and dimensions. Sharers must also upload images of the cover, back cover, copyright page, and table of contents, but they can choose to withhold their contact details from public view. For those sharing a large volume of books, Interviewee A acknowledged the potential challenge of manually entering book details multiple times, noting that it would be “tedious for sharers to input book information a 100 times.” In such cases, he and other volunteers assist in the data entry process. Once a book is requested, the sharer receives an email notification from HK BookShare, including the borrower’s address, mailing instructions, and guidelines (Figure 4). For newcomers unfamiliar with the UK mailing system, these instructions provide essential guidance, particularly on packaging methods to minimize postage costs:

Place the book in a regular large envelope or document bag rather than a box or bubble wrap to avoid excessive packaging and additional postage costs. To prevent the envelope from tearing, it’s best to secure it with adhesive tape or packing tape in a cross pattern.

Figure 4.

The email template instructing sharers to send out their books, by february 13, 2025.

Additionally, the website estimates mailing costs based on book weight and dimensions, ensuring greater transparency for sharers regarding potential expenses.

Between July 2023 and January 2025, I loaned out 39 books, with no reported losses during mailing. However, I occasionally struggled to locate requested books within my personal collection of over 300 volumes, which lacks a systematic cataloging system. This limitation, common among volunteers, can lead to borrower disappointment and sharer frustration, highlighting the challenges of a self-managed library system. However, my situation may be atypical, as most sharers manage smaller collections of only a few dozen books, making a professional cataloging system unnecessary (Interviewee C, H). Additionally, since HK BookShare operates on an online shop framework with limited customization for library functions, there is no built-in system for sharers to track their lending history. As a result, I rely solely on email records to monitor which books I have loaned out. The lack of comprehensive records management may present challenges in tracking lending activities and ensuring accountability in a long run, highlighting a potential area for improvement.

Theoretically, users of the HK BookShare can retain borrowed items for 1 month. Since the HK BookShare lacks a physical library for book storage, borrowers are requested to dispatch borrowed books directly to the next borrower and bear the shipping costs once the borrowing period concludes (Figure 5). If a book remains unrequested by another borrower, the system prompts the borrower to temporarily retain the book beyond the due date until receiving notification to send it to the next reader. However, the community-led nature of the HK BookShare allows for flexibility in its processes. In instances where Interviewee A requests the return of a book and the borrowers inform that they temporarily unavailable to post the book to the next borrower (e.g. unable to comply due to traveling), the borrower usually informs Interviewee A accordingly (Interviewee A; B; C). Generally, Interviewee A accommodates the borrower’s situation, allowing them to return the book upon their arrival home.

Figure 5.

Book circulation process of HK BookShare.

To summarize, the HK BookShare has effectively repurposed existing online shop technology to construct its library system. This approach offers significant advantages, including ease of management for volunteers and a user-friendly interface for navigating borrowing and registration procedures. However, limited customization remains a constraint. Additionally, the transition to an online platform does not eliminate the importance of human interaction. Strategies such as the use of pseudonyms protect user privacy, while the emotional aspects, such as stories of late book returns, highlight the flexibility and communal bonds fostered by a community-led model in an online environment.

The usage of the HK BookShare

The HK BookShare’s digital infrastructure, impact, and scale can be assessed through descriptive statistics. As Hong Kong immigrants continue arriving in the UK, the platform fills a critical service gap by providing access to Hong Kong-themed books. While university libraries like SOAS Library and public institutions like Charing Cross Library have incorporated Chinese-language materials, few institutions have dedicated Hong Kong-themed collections. A significant exception is the Gathering Leaves Hong Kong project at Belsize Community Library in London, which housed approximately 300 books by the end of 2024. ⁷ However, HK BookShare offers greater scale and accessibility, enabling direct book-sharing among Hong Kong emigrants with fewer institutional barriers.

The participation of individuals has facilitated an exponential growth in the book collection since its inaugural year (Table 1). As of January 2025, marking the second anniversary of the HK BookShare, the database contains over 1600 book titles, establishing it as one of the largest collections of Hong Kong-themed books in the UK. 275 individuals have utilized the platform’s services, resulting in a total of 728 loans. Interviewee A considers these figures satisfactory, given the platform’s newness and entirely voluntary nature. However, due to the novelty of the concept, establishing a reference point for comparison proves challenging.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics on the performance of the HK BookShare.

Performance Indicator	February 2023	September 2023	January 2024	July 2024	January 2025
Total number of Books	310	975	>1200	>1400	>1600
Total number of sharers	1	26	40	45	57
Total number of loans out	N/A	172	354	529	728
Total number of borrowers	N/A	97	155	217	275
Lost items	N/A	0	0	2	4

I was particularly intrigued by the geographical distribution of users, which highlights the platform’s success. By 31 January 2025, the borrowers of the HK BookShare are situated in 86 different cities and towns, with London (N = 94) standing out as a primary hub for the users (Table 2). Manchester (N = 30), Bristol (N = 11), and Reading (N = 8) follow, albeit with a noticeable gap. This broad distribution illustrates how the HK BookShare transcends the geographical constraints of traditional UK interlibrary loan (ILL) services, which are often restricted by local authority agreements. Public library ILL services typically operate within specific regional networks, such as the South East Library Management Systems, limiting nationwide access (Brighton & Hove City Council, n.d.). Even where national ILL services exist, borrowers must physically collect books from designated branches, posing challenges for those in remote or underserved areas. In contrast, the HK BookShare bypasses institutional restrictions and enables users to borrow and lend books directly across the UK, regardless of location.

Table 2.

The number of borrowers by city/town by 31 january 2025.

Location	Number
London	94
Manchester	30
Bristol	11
Reading	8
Edinburgh	7
Birmingham	5
Warrington	5
Milton Keynes	4
Nottingham	4
Leeds	4
Sheffield	4
Solihull	4
Royal Tunbridge Wells	4
Glasgow	4
72 others cities/town	87

In addition, Figures 6 and 7 provide insight into the interests of book sharers and borrowers, highlighting trends in collection composition and borrowing preferences. ⁸

Figure 6.

HK BookShare’s books by genre.

Figure 7.

HK BookShare’s book loans by genre.

As of January 2025, the HK BookShare database comprises a diverse collection, with non-fiction titles surpassing fiction in volume. The largest category is Fiction & Literature (N = 485), followed by History (N = 393) and Politics & Law (N = 259), reflecting a strong interest in historical and socio-political discourse among the sharers. Other notable non-fiction genres include Media & Culture (N = 150), Humanities & Social Science (N = 148), and Biography & Memoir (N = 94), highlighting engagement with cultural and intellectual narratives. Additionally, Children’s Books (N = 247) form a significant segment, aligning with the family-oriented demographic of BN(O) migrants.

Loan data from this online, decentralized, user-to-user borrowing platform reveals distinct engagement trends, with Children’s Books and Politics & Law experiencing the highest demand. As of January 2025, Children’s Books account for 204 loans, despite a total of 247 titles, indicating strong borrowing activity among families with young children. Similarly, Politics & Law books (N = 131) suggest high interest in legal and political discourse, reflecting ongoing engagement with Hong Kong-related socio-political issues. While Fiction & Literature (N = 131) remains widely available, its loan rate is more moderate. Other non-fiction genres, such as History (N = 44) and Humanities & Social Science (N = 58), see lower circulation. Conversely, Photography (N = 6) and Architecture & Cityscape (N = 22) show the lowest borrowing rates.

These findings underscore the effectiveness of HK BookShare’s decentralized model in providing book access to geographically dispersed users. The collection’s diversity, encompassing fiction, non-fiction, children’s literature, and specialized topics, broadly aligns with users’ intellectual, educational, and cultural needs, supporting engagement within the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK. However, the data reveals a discrepancy between book availability and borrowing patterns, indicating misalignment between what users share and what they borrow. While Fiction & Literature constitutes the largest category, its borrowing rate remains relatively low compared to its availability. Conversely, Children’s Books demonstrate significantly higher circulation, reflecting greater demand relative to supply. Unlike traditional libraries with acquisition teams that curate collections based on user needs, HK BookShare operates through voluntary contributions, limiting its ability to adjust holdings in response to borrowing trends. Nonetheless, the platform remains a valuable resource, fostering access to a wide range of materials through a flexible, community-led model.

Navigating trust, volunteerism, and algorithmic governance in a decentralized model

While the statistics on platform usage highlight the HK BookShare’s success in facilitating book access and engagement, its decentralized nature also presents structural challenges. Beyond collection diversity and borrowing patterns, the platform’s sustainability relies on social trust, volunteer participation, and algorithmic governance. Based on grounded theory analysis of field notes and interview transcripts, the following section explores these underlying issues, shedding light on the complexities of maintaining a user-driven, decentralized book-sharing system.

A key dynamic shaping this sharing economy model is the role of social trust. Unlike public and academic libraries, which enforce rules through fines and penalties, the community-led HK BookShare relies entirely on interpersonal trust for sustainability. One crucial aspect is trust in the public system, particularly the UK postal service, on which the platform depends. Interviewees were asked about concerns regarding book losses during mailing, and some sharers have adopted risk-mitigation strategies. For example, Interviewee C, a borrower and sharer who describes herself as a “bookaholic and shopaholic,” lends only books for which she has duplicates in her personal collection.

I have an Excel file to manage my books, but sometimes I still mismanage and end up buying duplicates. So, all the books I upload to the system already have a copy. I really have trust issues. There are some out-of-print books that I won’t upload because if they get lost, I would be really heartbroken.

Interviewee D conducts a personal risk assessment by categorizing his collection based on perceived value. He loans out the least valuable items using standard second-class mail, more valuable ones with signature confirmation, and retains possession of his most treasured books without lending them out. However, most interviewees acknowledge the risk but are willing to take it as part of their contribution to the community, as Interviewee D mentioned:

If we want everyone to have traditional Chinese books to read, it seems like the only direction is online platforms, unless we secure a large funding. In that case, it’s about trusting the system and accepting these minor risks.

It is noteworthy that trust in the system could strengthen over time; through repeated usage, both interviewees and I have encountered no instances of lost mail, thereby enhancing confidence in the reliability of the postal system. According to Interviewee A, four books have been lost during the postal process by January 2025, but the sharers have generally responded with sympathy and understanding. However, it remains to be seen whether a greater frequency of such incidents might eventually lead to trust issues among sharers.

More than that, lending cherished books to unfamiliar individuals inherently necessitates a certain degree of social trust in strangers. Some interviewees believe that the complexity of the registration and verification system itself can deter malicious users, as the Interviewee D said:

Books are not jewels. I think it’s unlikely that users would invest the time and effort to fabricate or provide false personal information and successfully pass through system verification, solely for the purpose of stealing or damaging a book.

One prevalent concern raised by Interviewee C is the inadvertent mishandling of books by other users, as Interviewee C mentioned:

Sometimes, the other person doesn’t intentionally damage your books; it could just be accidental, like tearing a page or spilling coffee. But it still hurts a lot.

Interestingly, the majority of interviewees express a prevailing confidence in fellow British-Hongkongers, as highlighted by Interviewee B:

It’s truly amazing . . . If I were in Hong Kong, I would have never thought that borrowing books by mail could work. However, after moving to the UK, it turns out that borrowing books by mail is feasible. It’s the same group of people; those who love to read will read whether they’re in Hong Kong or abroad. Yet, the results are completely different.

During the interview, he frequently employs the phrase “one of our own” (自己人 zi6 gei2 jan4), suggesting that a shared Hongkonger identity fosters mutual trust within the community. ⁹ The relationship between racial/ethnic identification and social trust is nuanced, as indicated in existing sociological literature (Stets and Fares, 2019), suggesting a potential new research direction. Meanwhile, the HK BookShare’s model may inherently involve a self-selection bias. For example, Interviewee C noted that some of her acquaintances opted not to participate because of reluctance to lend personal books to strangers. Consequently, the platform may primarily attract individuals with higher social trust, potentially limiting its reach and inclusivity.

Another challenging issue is how to sustain volunteerism, which also presents challenges for many library institutions (Colibaba et al., 2019). A noteworthy feature of the HK BookShare is that users inherently assume volunteer responsibilities by dispatching books to subsequent users. Users incur a nominal cost, typically £2.40 to £3.49 per book, depending on size. However, greater user involvement paradoxically increases costs for volunteers. Interviewee B, a full-time professional, finds the time and financial costs manageable, using 10 minutes during lunch breaks to send books. In contrast, Interviewee C, a postgraduate student seeking employment in a new country, views the cost differently:

As I need money more, I haven’t used it in these past few months. Postage isn’t cheap and after you finish reading, you can’t keep the book. Returning several books could already be enough to buy one book from In Common Breath (A Hong Kong-themed bookshop in Nottingham).

The aforementioned case illustrates how a decentralized library model may inadvertently perpetuate traditional class dynamics. Corporate sponsorship could serve as a mitigation measure, reducing financial burdens on volunteers and diversifying collection. For instance, in 2024, three Taiwan-based publishers, 1841 Press, 2046 Press, and Hopology, donated 67 books to HK BookShare, demonstrating how external partnerships might contribute to the platform’s long-term impact and sustainability.

However, this volunteerism must be understood within a broader political context. The 2019 Anti-Extradition protests led to total mobilization from civil society, cultivating a self-mobilizing ethos among many Hong Kong citizens (Cheng and Yuen, 2025). This experience transformed individuals into proactive agents of change, a mindset that many Hong Kong migrants have carried into their post-migration experiences, continuing their engagement in community-driven initiatives. Reading, as an act of cultural performativity and preservation, has emerged as a form of community engagement among Hong Kong migrants. For instance, Interviewee D set up his reading group in Wales. Interviewee G, one of the few highly active volunteers, not only shares and borrows books but also contributes to promotional strategies for the HK BookShare. She emphasizes that “Participating in HK BookShare is one of the ways to help more people feel that they are still Hongkongers.” As she reflected on the origins of her involvement, it became evident that her sense of mission and deep connection to her homeland have been the driving forces behind her sustained commitment to the project:

After getting involved, I realized that I genuinely wanted to continue engaging in things related to Hong Kong. I strongly believe in the importance of cultural preservation. The geographical distance creates a barrier between us and Hong Kong—our so-called homeland—but how can we overcome this divide while still maintaining our Hong Kong identity? The geographical distance creates a barrier between us and Hong Kong—our so-called homeland—but how can we overcome this divide while still maintaining our Hong Kong identity? Many young families around me have moved here with their children. Beyond simply becoming what is commonly referred to as BBC (British-Born Chinese), are there other possibilities for them? In the process of identity formation, can they come to recognize some connection to their Hong Kong heritage? I believe that if HK BookShare can play a role in fostering this awareness, it would be incredibly meaningful.

While the 2019 Anti-Extradition protest remains a recent and deeply resonant event for many Hongkongers, it remains to be seen whether this sense of identity and cultural connection will endure over time. As memory fades and generations succeed, this question remains open for observation, but it is likely a shared challenge among many migrant organizations seeking to preserve cultural heritage across different diasporas.

These dynamics of trust and commitment could be further complicated by algorithmic governance, particularly when the library is fully integrated into digital platforms, which may disproportionately affect individuals with lower levels of digital literacy. In the digital age, information dissemination is increasingly shaped by algorithmic structures, with search engine optimization (SEO) playing a crucial role in platform discoverability and ensuring information remains publicly accessible (Onaifo and Rasmussen, 2013). BigCommerce provided a streamlined solution for Google search integration, which Interviewee A found satisfactory. However, social media engagement presents a greater challenge, posing ongoing difficulties for HK BookShare in reaching a broader audience. Even Interviewee A, as the founder and a young professional, expressed difficulties in navigating social media tools:

I’ve noticed that the Facebook reach rate has been lower recently compared to last year. Specifically, the number of followers on the HK BookShare’s Facebook page is seven times that of Instagram, yet some posts on Instagram actually get more likes than on Facebook. I’m not sure why this is happening, but I suspect it might be due to some “Little Pink” (Chinese nationalistic netizens) reporting the HK BookShare’s Facebook page, causing its reach rate to drop.

His remark offers an intriguing political perspective that is hardly falsified, but it certainly overlooks the technological complexities involved in search optimization technologies and the increasing professionalization of digital marketing. These include the sophisticated mechanisms of social media advertising, and the intricate algorithms that govern online visibility, requiring specialized expertise in their management (Duffy and Sawey, 2022).

Reflecting the essence of libraries

While the above data and interview testimonies highlight the achievements, limitations, and nuanced dynamics of the HK BookShare in various aspects of its implementation, some interviewees have also used this case to reflect on broader implications of such a decentralized models on the meaning of librarians and libraries.

In the current model, the HK BookShare skipped the steps of book acquisitions, relying on the sharing by the members of the public. Existing literature has demonstrated how the preferences of librarians and patrons often reflect underlying power relations and dominant oppressive structures, such as class and gender (Lawrence, 2020; Tong, 2024). My inquiry centers on whether a decentralized platform without a formal acquisition team, such as the HK BookShare, might potentially transform these dynamics and better reflect the public interest. Interviewee E, a postgraduate student in social science, believes that while the system meets his personal needs, it may not be capable of accommodating the diverse requirements of other users:

What I mean is that, primarily, I focus on the humanities and social sciences, as well as politics, and I think the platform options are more than adequate. However, I don’t necessarily expect to find popular reads like light novels and manga on it.

He raised an interesting point: while the selection of books on the HK BookShare platform is not determined by a centralized acquisition team, the system is not entirely decentralized. In his words:

In the end, the platform has only a few dedicated individuals who upload their collections, so the direction of the platform is naturally influenced by them. For example, you can see that the proportion of social science books is heavier compared to general community libraries.

This dynamic is evidenced by the statistics of the HK BookShare, which indicate that, despite having more than 1600 book items, there are only 57 sharers. This suggests a highly concentrated sharing pattern, with an oligopoly of book sharers dominating the platform.

Another challenge facing the sharing economy model of libraries is the potential reduction of library functions to mere information-sharing platforms in the absence of physical interactions. Existing literature supports the view that libraries serve a broader social purpose beyond mere information dissemination; they act as spaces for fostering connections, catalyzing change, and promoting community empowerment and social inclusion (Kranich, 2020; Scott, 2011; Stilwell, 2018). A paradox arises wherein the HK BookShare appears to function as what Interviewee B describes as a “community-managed library without community engagement.” He advocates for libraries to play a “more active educational role,” such as aiding in the integration of individuals into new societies, rather than merely serving as “passive providers of information.” Despite this critique, he expressed appreciation for the overall vision of the project, encapsulated in the sentiment, “we must think big, but start small.” Interviewee A also acknowledges the problem in his second interview, especially how echo chambers are taking in shape:

I think continuing to run the online platform is not a problem, but online has its own limitations, particularly in being confined to echo chambers . . .. Instead of limiting efforts to online marketing, it might be better to use physical events to raise awareness about the HK BookShare and outreach more new communities.

In the interview, he addressed the issue of engagement through a “marketing lens,” viewing it as a strategy to extend the reach of the HK BookShare to underserved communities. Interviewees D and E adopt a pragmatic perspective in appreciating the work of the HK BookShare. They suggest that community engagement and social inclusion require coordinated efforts, involving not only the library but also collaboration with other groups.

As HK BookShare evolved, it expanded community engagement through online and offline partnerships. In August 2023, it participated in Joyous Reading Week, organized by Gathering Leaves Hong Kong at Belsize Community Library, London, where Interviewee A introduced the platform and facilitated onsite book borrowing. In 2024, it partnered with Good Neighbor Church England in Birmingham to establish physical reading corners, improving access for local Hong Kong readers with limited online engagement. On June 2, 2024, HK BookShare collaborated with Trafford Hongkongers CIC to host “Remember the Truth: Manchester Exhibition of the June 4th Massacre.” Contributing over 30 books on the 1989 June 4th Movement, the platform helped preserve a politically significant yet increasingly censored topic in Hong Kong. Over the past 2 years, Volunteers also engaged in outreach to local libraries across the UK, including posting informational materials in community spaces (Figure 8). Meanwhile, HK BookShare continues to innovate engagement strategies that mix remote and physical elements. In 2024, HK BookShare partnered with the Nomad Reading Group in Cardiff to recommend books and publish reviews online. In 2024, the London-based art collective Bookliner and HK BookShare co-organized the event “Books on a Journey.” As part of this initiative, over 30 books were selected, each accompanied by a Bookliner note card, enabling readers to document their reflections, insights, and the book’s journey. These note cards will be collected and exhibited in London, providing visitors with a visual narrative of the books’ travels and the inspirations they have sparked among readers.

Figure 8.

HK BookShare’s poster at Hanwell local library.

These initiatives demonstrate that traditional libraries, community spaces, and decentralized online platforms are not opposing forces but can complement one another to enhance social impact, community engagement, and broader access to resources.

Conclusion

Since 2021, hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers have arrived in the United Kingdom through the BN(O) visa scheme, creating a significant demand for Chinese books and reading materials. Literature has underscored the challenges traditional community libraries face in meeting the information needs of diasporic communities, largely due to their geographical dispersion. The HK BookShare represents a pioneering effort to address this issue using a sharing economy model. It houses one of the largest collections of Hong Kong-themed books in the United Kingdom, with over 1600 titles, benefiting individuals across 86 cities and towns by January 2025. While most interviewees express satisfaction with the HK BookShare’s collection size, straightforward system, project concepts, and practical functions, issues related to social trust, volunteerism, and algorithmic design persist. The story of the HK BookShare also prompts a critical reflection on the role of libraries as gatekeepers of knowledge and promoters of social inclusion, particularly when professionally trained librarians are absent from the project.

While this study provides valuable insights into the role of the HK BookShare in addressing service gaps for Hong Kong emigrants, it is limited by the lack of demographic data on its user base. Although the founder has access to borrowers’ names for logistical purposes, users are not required to visit a physical location or provide additional identifying details. As a result, the user base remains largely pseudonymous, making it difficult to assess who is using the service and how accessibility factors, such as age or disability, impact participation. Future research could address this gap by conducting a large-scale user survey to better understand the platform’s reach and effectiveness in serving diverse communities. Despite this limitation, the findings underscore the significance of community-led, decentralized models in expanding access to Hong Kong-themed books beyond institutional constraints.

It is important to emphasize that physical libraries and sharing economy models are not mutually exclusive; rather, they can generate synergistic effects in addressing information needs. For example, Charing Cross Library, adjacent to London’s Chinatown, has been serving the Chinese-reading community for decades. Additionally, innovative projects have emerged alongside the recent wave of BN(O) migration, such as the Gathering Leaves Hong Kong project, housed by Belsize Community Library, which has established a special Hong Kong-themed collection and hosts a wide variety of cultural events. New Hong Kong immigrants have also mobilized to donate books to local libraries, such as Sutton Central Library. Due to space constraints, this article cannot fully address the roles and unique contributions of these physical projects in meeting the information needs of new immigrants. In this light, the HK BookShare, alongside its physical counterparts, not only fulfills a practical need but also serves as a reminder of the enduring power of libraries to unite, inspire, and sustain shared knowledge in an evolving diasporic landscape.