Green Libraries and the User’s Perspective: A Case Study in Turkey

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify green (environmentally friendly) practices in the university libraries of Kocaeli and Istanbul, and to determine the environmental awareness and attitudes of the users (students) of these libraries in their daily lives, as well as conceptually. In addition, students’ level of awareness about the environmental impacts of access to and use of information, and the greenness of libraries from the user’s perspective were also investigated. Within the scope of the study, data was collected through a face-to-face questionnaire method conducted with the library users of 11 universities. Questionnaires were distributed only to student library users, and a total of 436 students answered them. This study differs from the existing literature by evaluating the environmental measures applied by librarians and their users, in contrast to studies employing conceptual approaches to the subject of green libraries. This study is intended to assist library managers, librarians and researchers conducting research on these issues. It encompasses the users’ perceptions of green libraries, environmental approaches and practices that they support in libraries, their awareness of the environmental effects of information access and use, and how they evaluate their library from a green perspective. In a global context, it aims to contribute to the literature on libraries by presenting data from an unresearched region. The study first assesses the green practices of 11 university libraries using a questionnaire given to library managers, and then assesses them using a questionnaire distributed to users. Finally, it seeks to present a concrete link between information literacy and the environment, contrasting green libraries with their users’ awareness of environmental impact. The results of the study showed that 7 of the 11 university libraries are in the green library category. When the data obtained from the users was analyzed, the average score for environmental awareness and attitude (EAA) in daily life among those who had received environmental education was found to be significantly higher than those who had not. The level of greenness a library was evaluated as having (EGL) was significantly higher among users of green libraries than non-green users. This can be interpreted as users having noticed the environmentally friendly measures being practiced. No significant difference was found between the green libraries and their users’ environmental awareness and attitudes in daily life.

Keywords

green libraries green library operations environmental awareness environmental literacy

Introduction

The green library movement, which emerged in the early 1990s as a result of libraries being more concerned about environmental issues in general, is now gaining traction in the field of library and information science. As the literature on green libraries started to evolve, public awareness of the subject grew. For instance, Hauke and Werner (Petra Hauke, 2013) go into great length regarding the green library movement and how it began in the 1990s. Furthermore, Antonelli (2008) describes the various online pages and websites dedicated to green library buildings. As Şeşen and Kuzcuoğlu stated (2020, p. 10), the green libraries bibliography contains 218 publications spanning the years 1971 to 2012, and since 2016, a green library award has been presented to a library annually by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutes (IFLA) (Şeşen and Kuzcuoğlu, 2020). Małgorzata Fedorowicz-Kruszewska went further and divided publications on green libraries into two periods: the first publication period of 1991–2006 and the period of 2007 to 2020, when the number of publications increased relatively systematically (Fedorowicz-Kruszewska, 2022, p. 912). Aside from the increase in publications, efforts have been made to synthesize and analyze the concept of green libraries in order to create a theoretical framework for them, as well as to create a typology of topical areas and define terminology in the field (Antonelli, 2008), (Meyer, 2008), (Stark, 2012), (Aulisio, 2013), (Purohit, 2013). Dictionaries and encyclopedic publications have also contributed to the definition effort (Keenan, 2000), (Khosrow-Pour, 2013), (Levine-Clark, 2013), (McDonald, 2018), (Merriam-Webster, 2022), and authors have tracked the evolution of the debate over green and sustainable libraries (Chowdhury, 2012), (Fedorowicz-Kruszewska, 2019), (Fedorowicz-Kruszewska, 2021), (Meschede & Henkel, 2019), (Kurbanoğlu & Boustany, 2014) (Fourie, 2012), (Sahavirta, 2018). In addition to these studies, the number of publications on green libraries from different countries is increasing (Tseng, 2008), (Asogwa, 2014), (Jones, 2016), (Erhabor & Don, 2016), (Ghorbani et al., 2017), (Kebe & Podjavorsek, 2019), (Ogiemwonyi et al., 2020), (Kang, 2020), (Erwinsyah, 2022). This study is one of the few studies evaluating green libraries in Turkey (Akbulut et al., 2018; Kurbanoğlu & Boustany, 2014).

Although the literature on sustainable library and green library practices has increased in recent years, Kurbanoğlu and Boustany (2014) state that there are few publications on the link between information literacy and the environment.

Before explaining the concept of environmental literacy, it will be useful to first explain the concept of environmental education. The issue of including environmental education in formal and non-formal education was first defined in the Tbilisi Declaration published in the Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education held in Tbilisi in 1977 in cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – United Nations Environment Program. It is the process of educating individuals on environmental issues in order for them to gain the necessary knowledge and skills to increase their motivation and improve their attitudes in this field, to put forward ideas about solutions to environmental problems and to exhibit positive behaviors toward the environment (UNEP, 1977). The main purpose of environmental education is to raise individuals with environmental literacy skills. Roth defined environmental literacy as an individual having knowledge about the environment and a level of environmental awareness (Roth, 1968). Later, he expanded his first definition, and emphasized that environmental literacy should also include observable behaviors (Roth, 1992). According to this definition, information literacy is an individual’s capacity to take their knowledge and environmental awareness one step further and reflect it in their behavior. Such definitions include affective (attitudinal), cognitive (knowledge-based), and behavioral domains, emphasizing that environmental literacy is both a process and an outcome that develops, builds, and morphs over time (Wheaton, 2018), (Hollweg et al., 2011). Repanovici and Landoy (2015) conducted a study based on green information literacy, in which they stated that they took their inspiration from Kurbanoğlu and Boustany (2014). In their study, a 10-question questionnaire was given to 335 students who had received information literacy training at Transylvania University, which included the concept of green libraries, green information systems and green practices. Among the questions was one regarding the statement “information literacy creates sustainable thinking.” About 88.3% of the 333 persons who responded to the question strongly agreed with this statement, while 11.7% agreed with it just slightly. The findings on lifelong learning in public and school libraries support the fact that academic institutions contribute significantly to lifelong learning by providing access to relevant information, giving training on research publications, as well as search strategy training, communication skills training, information literacy and reading (Agee, 2005) (Ashcroft et al., 2007) (Forsyth, 2005).

How to think sustainably when making use of information literacy skills (seeking, obtaining, using and conveying information) should be incorporated into information literacy teaching. With in this framework, as Miller (2010, p. 7), “libraries are challenged with the new role of connecting the public with environmental awareness and education.” As seen in this area, there is a lack of studies on library users’ approaches and awareness levels when it comes to the subject. However, besides the environmental approaches of libraries and librarians, users’ approaches with regard to the subject are extremely important. For this reason, it is aimed that this study, which is a situation determination study, will contribute to the field by providing library managers, librarians and researchers with information on users’ perceptions, environmental approaches and practices when it comes to green libraries, their awareness of the environmental effects of information access and use (Williams, 2011), and how green they deem their libraries to be. This is because being green/environmentally friendly as a part of being sustainable is possible with a holistic approach that includes not only administrators, librarians and library staff, but also users.

The main research questions posed are thus:

Q1: How green are the university libraries included within the scope of the study?

Q2: Is there a relationship between green libraries and their users’ level of environmental awareness and environmental attitudes?

Q3: Are green libraries considered green by their users?

The following hypotheses were made:

H1: Levels of environmental awareness and the environmental attitudes in daily life of those who receive environmental education are higher than those who do not receive education (Repanovici & Landoy, 2015).

H2: There is a positive correlation between a library’s level of greenness and the environmental awareness and attitudes of its users in their daily lives.

H3: A library’s level of greenness is positively correlated with how green its users percieve it to be.

Green Library Operations and Practices

The term “green library” is used to describe a library that promotes sustainability, is environmentally sensitive and operates in a way that creates a smaller carbon footprint (Aulisio, 2013), (Kurbanoğlu & Boustany, 2014). Furthermore, the term refers to a library that is environmentally conscious in a variety of ways, such as using nontoxic, and thus environmentally friendly, cleaning solutions rather than hazardous chemical cleansers.

The Talloires Declaration (1990), is generally accepted as having been one of the most important developments in the provision of environmental education by universities. It was signed in October 1990 in Talloires, France by the rectors of 20 universities, presidents and vice-presidents from different parts of the world (Lozano et al., 2013). The 10-step action plan in the Declaration is as follows:

(1) Increase awareness of environmentally sustainable development: Use every opportunity to raise public, government, industry, foundation and university awareness by openly addressing the urgent need to move toward an environmentally sustainable future.

(2) Create an ınstitutional culture of sustainability: Encourage all universities to engage in education, research, policy formation and information exchange on population, environment and development to move toward global sustainability.

(3) Educate for environmentally responsible citizenship: Establish programs to produce expertise in environmental management, sustainable economic development, population and related fields to ensure that all university graduates are environmentally literate and have the awareness and understanding to be ecologically responsible citizens.

(4) Foster environmental literacy for all: Create programs to develop the capability of university faculties to teach environmental literacy to all undergraduate, graduate and professional students.

(5) Practice institutional ecology: Set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing institutional ecology policies and practices of resource conservation, recycling, waste reduction and environmentally sound operations.

(6) Involve all stakeholders: Encourage the involvement of government, foundations and industry in supporting interdisciplinary research, education, policy formation and information exchange in environmentally sustainable development. Expand work with community and nongovernmental organizations to assist in finding solutions to environmental problems.

(7) Collaborate for interdisciplinary approaches: Have university faculties and administrators convene with environmental practitioners to develop interdisciplinary approaches to curricula, research initiatives, operations and outreach activities that support an environmentally sustainable future.

(8) Enhance capacity of primary and secondary schools: Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools to help develop the capacity for interdisciplinary teaching about the population, environment and sustainable development.

(9) Broaden service and outreach nationally and internationally: Work with national and international organizations to promote a worldwide university effort toward a sustainable future.

(10) Maintain the movement: Establish a secretariat and a steering committee to continue this momentum, and to inform and support each other’s efforts in carrying out this declaration. (A. O. Future, 2015)

Studies on sustainability in universities particularly took off following the Talloires Declaration (1990). Since the 1990s, universities have been working more to reduce the environmental impact of their campuses and to become green campuses, while the “green library” movement began in university libraries and among librarians (Antonelli, 2008).

To be called a “green library” a library does not have to have completed all the above steps. It can also refer to a library that is making significant efforts to become more environmentally sustainable, such as using nontoxic cleaning supplies, reducing its energy consumption, or collecting and promoting environmental-themed materials.

Sahavirta (2018, pp. 19–20) suggests that the operational plan for libraries that are ecologically conscious should include the following:

analysis of the environmental impact of a library building and library activities, followed by the development of an environmental strategy that will define measures and the objectives of environmental activities,

promoting recycling and sharing within their own communities in different ways,

guarantee of easy and open access to environmental information,

increasing the community’s environmental awareness by improving skills around critical literacy, searching and presenting information, and ensuring equality in access to information.

While the term “green library” is frequently used to refer to a library that has received Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification from the United States Green Building Council, it can also refer to a library that is making significant efforts to become more environmentally sustainable, whether through the use of nontoxic cleaning supplies, reduced energy use, or the collection and promotion of materials with environmental themes. According to the US Green Building Council’s LEED performance system (GreenLibraries, 2018), a green building is one that is built incorporating the following design elements: Sustainable site selection and development, Water conservation, Energy efficiency, Local resources, material conservation and waste reduction, Indoor environmental quality, and Innovation in design.

Universities play a critical role in tackling global environmental concerns, as their participation in education, research and community can have long-term environmental and social repercussions (Ralph & Stubbs, 2014). Jankowska and Marcum (2010, p. 161) on academic libraries indicates that since the 1990s, library literature on sustainability and environmental concerns has grown and garnered much attention. Around 2003, the green library movement gained traction in the library profession, and it now includes a growing number of librarians, libraries, communities, towns, college and university campuses all dedicated to greening libraries by reducing their environmental impact. Building green library buildings, greening existing library facilities, providing green library services, and implementing environmentally beneficial and sustainable practices inside the library are all examples of this innovation (Antonelli, 2008). In order to carry out these efforts and promote sustainability, librarians must take the initiative, as stated by Aulisio (2013) and Asogwa (2014). They state that the experts in charge of the library should carry out sustainable management activities to involve people in sustainability, manage available resources, satisfy the expectations of customers and employees, disseminate successful practices and identify those in need of improvement (Asogwa, 2014), (Jankowska & Marcum, 2010).

Libraries, as “empowerment engines,” have a unique and special role to play in making the world a better place (Aldrich, 2018, p. 15), and as American Libraries Association (ALA) President Loida Garcia-Febo rightly said, libraries can be catalysts for developing solutions to global issues such as climate change (Open Interview, 2021). In order to do this, libraries must take additional steps in order to be truly sustainable (Tans, 2017). Today, there are several libraries in various regions of the world that have green buildings. In particular, the United States Green Building Council (WGBC, 2021) is the largest environmental and building technology developer organization and NGO dedicated to a sustainable and prosperous future with the LEED system, the most preferred certification or rating program for green buildings and cities worldwide.

The Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STAR) was created by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education in 2006 in order to support the formation of the first sustainable university (Güllü et al., 2012). Another ranking system (GreenMetric Criteria & Indicators, 1990), which is the most well-known and most widely cited, is UI GreenMetric (GM), which is an Asian-based system created by Universitas Indonesia in 2010, and which ranks universities in the world according to their sustainability approaches and environmental activities. The major goal of GM is to rate institutions by gathering information on sustainability research, environmental initiatives and university campus practices. According to this system, information on campus setting and infrastructure provides the basis of a university’s green environment policy. This metric also indicates if the institution is deserving of the label “Green Campus.” The goal is to encourage the participating universities to devote more space to vegetation, environmental protection and the development of renewable energy. The following are the indicators and percentages used (GreenMetric Criteria & Indicators): Setting and Infrastructure (SI) (15%), Energy and Climate Change (EC) (21%), Waste (WS) (18%), Water Usage (WR) (10%), Transportation System (TR) (18%), and Education and Research (ED) (18%). According to the data from 2022, 30 universities from Turkey appear in the GM rankings (Greenmetric, 2022) and six of these are included in this study.

Methodology

This study employed the questionnaire method previously utilized by Dogan Demirtas (2019). It was conducted in two stages. Firstly, the libraries to be included in the study were chosen from the provinces of Istanbul and Kocaeli due to time and cost considerations. These universities are Boğaziçi University (Boun), Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Yildiz Technical University (YTU), Gebze Technical University (GTU), Marmara University (MU), Istanbul Medeniyet University (IMU), Sabanci University (SU), MEF University (MEF), Koc University (KU), Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University (IZU), and Ozyegin University (OZU). SU, MEF, KU, IZU, and OZU are private universities, while the others are state universities. Questionnaires could not be given out to students from MEF, KU, and OZU, as written approval from the university’s top management was required, thus students were only enrolled in the study from the eight other universities.

In the second stage, a face-to-face questionnaire was conducted with the library managers of 11 selected universities. The findings were evaluated under six main headings:

Sustainable environment,

Water use and saving,

Energy use and saving,

Sustainable use of materials and resources,

Indoor air quality,

Innovations in design and applications.

The data obtained as a result of the research was analyzed using the SPSS program. Afterward, Explatory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the scale, and then the research hypotheses were tested using the Independent Sample T-Test in comparisons of two groups and One-Way ANOVA Analysis in comparisons of more than two groups to determine the correlation and differences between groups.

The scales used in the questionnaire were developed and shared by Kurbanoğlu. Akbulut et al.’s (2018) study, of which Kurbanoğlu is one of the authors, was also used. Environmental sustainability was scored using the scoring scale developed by Mulford and Himmel (2010, p. 59) based on LEED criteria. According to this scale, each statement was evaluated out of five points (yes: 5, somewhat: 3, no: 1, don’t know: 0). With a maximum of five points available for 46 statements, the highest score possible was 230. The scoring scale deemed that university libraries with a score below 46 were in the “red” category, those between 46 and 138 points were in the “yellow” category and those between 138 and 230 points were in the “green” category. Libraries in the red group were classified as being behind in environmental sustainability, those in the yellow group at a medium level and those in the green group at a good level. The Rating score among green libraries can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The libraries’ green scores.

When we look at the results of the questionnaire, private universities occupy the top three places in the list of libraries in the green group, which can be explained by the fact that private universities are more comfortable in terms of budget. Unlike in older buildings, it can be seen that features that are important in terms of energy and water saving, such as double glazing and efficient water installations (sensor taps, toilets with double reservoirs) are frequently used nowadays in newly constructed buildings. However, although SU’s library is housed in a building constructed 20 years ago, it comes second place in water saving, and innovations in design and applications, ahead of the university libraries built after it. Looking at the total score, it is in third place overall. This shows that it is not necessary to have a new building in order to be a green library and that steps can be taken to become green by improving and maintaining existing buildings.

For the library user questionnaire, which consists of 7 sections and 59 statements, the face-to-face questionnaire method was used to collect data from 436 students who used the library during library visits. Due to its simplicity and objectivity, the basic random sampling method was used in this study to provide an overall sense of the universe, and surveys were distributed through face-to-face interviews in printed format.

In addition to questions about their demographic characteristics, participants were asked questions about their general interest in and awareness of the environment. Accordingly, the number of recipients who had received education about the environment was 157, making up 36% of the participants. Those who had not received any education in this area numbered 279, or 64%. The percentage of those who stated that they had not received any environmental education is quite high. On the other hand, the percentage of those who would like to recieve education about the environment was 62.8%. The number of students participating in the research who are members of an environmental association was 60, or 13.8%. The number of students who follow news on the environment was 294, or 67.4%. About 11.5% of the students stated that they had heard of the concept of a green library.

Validity of the Research

Factor analysis was carried out to establish the measurement validity of the research approach. In order to perform factor analysis, firstly, the variable names in the data set were assigned codes: “EAA” for environmental awareness and attitude in daily life, “GLP” for green library perception (how far a library was perceived to be green), “AEI” for awareness of the environmental impacts of information use and access, “SEF” for supporting environmentally friendly practices, and “EGL” for evaluation of green libraries (a library’s level of greenness).

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Sample Fit Measure (KMO) and Bartlett Sphericity Tests were then used to see if the sample size was adequate. It was concluded that a study group with a coefficient value of 0.86 was adequate. In addition, according to the result of Bartlett’s Test, in which the significance of factor structures was tested, p = .000 (p < .01) illustrated that the matrix created by the variables’ relationships was relevant for factor analysis and that factor analysis could be performed. The next step was to use factor analysis to determine the scale’s construct validity. Twenty-three items having factor loadings lower than 0.50, loaded on more than one factor or loaded on a single factor were eliminated from the factor analysis. Factor analysis was applied by choosing the varimax method for the remaining 31 items. As the factor loads were greater than 0.50, the results of the analysis showed that there was construct validity and a Cronbach’s alpha value of .81 indicated that the scale was reliable.

The factor loadings of the variables resulting from the factor analysis, the eigenvalue and variance percentages of the factors, and the variance percentages explained by all factors are shown in Table 1. Of the 54 items subjected to factor analysis, 23 items with factor loadings below 0.50, loaded on more than one factor or loaded on a single factor were excluded. Factor analysis was applied by choosing the varimax method for the remaining 31 items. The items were grouped under five factors as a result of the analysis. As shown in Table 2, it can be concluded that there is construct validity, as factor loads are greater than 0.50.2

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Students Participating in the Research.

Features	Options	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Female	222	50.9
	Male	214	49.1
Age group	18–20	211	35.6
	21–23	155	48.4
	24+	70	16.1
Level of education	Associate degree	3	0.7
	Bachelor’s	402	92.2
	Master’s	21	4.8
	Doctorate	10	2.3
Frequency of library use	Usually	117	26.8
	Often	158	36.2
	Sometimes	126	28.9
	Rarely	35	8.0
	Total	436	100

Table 2.

Factor Analysis.

	1	2	3	4	5
EAAT18	0.737
EAAT15	0.649
EAAT10	0.640
EAAT9	0.613
EAAT17	0.598
EAAT4	0.534
AEIF3		0.892
AEIF4		0.875
AEIF2		0.842
AEIF5		0.761
AEIF1		0.575
GLPA8			0.837
GLPA7			0.836
GLPA9			0.821
GLPA11			0.746
GLPA6			0.733
GLPA12			0.674
GLPA10			0.641
GLPA4			0.579
SEFD9				0.558
SEFD8				0.689
SEFD7				0.737
SEFD5				0.724
SEFD6				0.749
SEFD4				0.761
SEFD1				0.762
EGL4					0.874
EGL5					0.820
EGL3					0.810
EGL1					0.629
EGL2					0.614
Eigenvalues	7,019	3,612	2,903	2,139	2,021
Adjusted R squared (%)	15,563	12,832	10,884	9,525	8,275
Total adjusted R squared = 57.079%

When the correlation coefficients in Table 3 are examined, it is seen that there is a significant one-to-one relationship at the .01 level between the variables “Environmental awareness and attitude,”“Green library perception,”“Supporting environmentally friendly practices,” and “Evaluation of green libraries.”

Table 3.

Mean, Standard Deviation Values, Cronbach’s Alpha and Correlation Coefficients.

Variable	Mean	Std. deviation	Cronbach’s alpha	1	2	3	4	5
Environmental awareness and attitude	3.45	0.68	.71	1
Environmental awareness with regard to information access	2.33	0.80	.85	.26	1
Green library perception	4.05	0.62	.89	.239**	−.152**	1
Supporting environmentally friendly practices	4.15	0.60	.86	.226**	−.058	.500**	1
Evaluation of green libraries	3.31	0.79	.81	.166**	.055	−.004	.042	1

p < .01.

Results

Q1: As the questionnaire-based study on Indonesian libraries shows, if an academic library has implemented sustainable practices it is a positive finding, as it represents success in a university’s efforts to address the problem of climate change (Rachman & Ratnasari, 2022). The present study also supports these findings. There is not a single university library that has a score lower than 46 and is in the red group. Four of the institutions are in the yellow group, with scores ranging from 46 to 138. By achieving 138 points, the remaining seven institutions can be regarded as being closer to the concept of a green library. The first three spots are occupied by private universities. The reason for this could be explained by the fact that private universities have more financial freedom. Furthermore, despite the fact that SU’s building is 20 years old, it is ranked second in terms of water conservation, design innovation and applications, proving that it is not outdated. The most practical measure that can be taken to increase the number of green libraries and contribute to sustainability, as Jankowska and Marcum (2010, p. 167), is to base all libraries’ strategic plans on an inclusive framework that combines the three standard dimensions of sustainable growth (social, economic, and environmental).

Q2: There were 157 users who had received environmental education out of a total of 436, accounting for 36% of the participants. Among the 279 people who had not received any environmental education, 62.8% would like to. Sixty students in the study are members of an environmental organization, that is, 13.8%. Environmental news is followed by 294 people, or 67.4% of the population. 11.5% of the students said they were familiar with the concept of a green library. When the average of environmental awareness and attitudes in daily life is compared according to whether the user has received any environmental education, the averages of those who have received education are X = 3.5934 compared to those who have not, which are X = 3.3740 [t (434) = 3.266; p = .001]. The difference was found to be significantly high, at a significance level of p < .05.

Another finding that emerged in this study is that some library managers should organize courses, exhibitions, etc. to raise awareness. Awareness about the environment is often low when different departments in universities each think that the other is responsible for raising this awareness. Yet, as Graham-Clare (2022), “libraries are in an excellent position to support and promote sustainability research on their campuses. They often act as a central hub for many faculties and provide links between various academic disciplines.” With this in mind, it is necessary to raise awareness about living a more sustainable life and how to make libraries more green, starting with library managers. Tans’ (2017) article, for example, demonstrates that “Michigan State University Libraries has been a pioneer in campus sustainable development by establishing a Library Environment Committee to organize educational programs and promote sustainable practices within the library.”

Q3: When the averages of the variables EAA, GLP, AEI, SEF, and EGL are compared between the green and yellow group category of library users, there is a significant difference between the users of libraries in the green library category and the users of libraries in the yellow category in terms of EGL averages. No significant difference was found between the green library users and the yellow library users in terms of “Environmental awareness and attitudes in daily life” (EAA). Likewise, when the “Environmental impacts of information access and use awareness” averages (AEI) and “Green library perceptions” (GLP) and “Supporting environmentally friendly practices” (SEF) averages were compared between these two groups, no significant difference was found. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 4:

Table 4.

Comparison of Research Elements Between Green and Yellow Categories.

	Category	N	X	SS	Sd	t	p
EAA	Green	261	3.484	0.69033	434	1.163	.245
	Yellow	175	3.406	0.66584
AEI	Green	261	2.324	0.77712	434	−.195	.846
	Yellow	175	2.339	0.84049
GLP	Green	261	4.025	0.57902	331.153	−.988	.324
	Yellow	175	4.087	0.68180
SEF	Green	261	4.127	0.58324	434	−1.022	.307
	Yellow	175	4.186	0.62471
EGL	Green	261	3.389	0.75887	434	2.346	.019
	Yellow	175	3.209	0.82485

Based on the analyses conducted up to this point, the results of the initial three hypotheses can be observed in Table 5.

Table 5.

Results of the Hypotheses.

H1	Levels of environmental awareness and the environmental attitudes in daily life of those who receive environmental education are higher than those who do not receive education.	Supported
H2	There is a positive correlation between a library’s level of greenness and the environmental awareness and attitudes of its users in their daily lives.	Unsupported
H3	A library’s level of greenness is positively correlated with how green its users perceive it to be.	Supported

One study conducted on solely green libraries found that users stated that libraries should make more efforts toward green living (Albertyn & Zinn, 2022). However, unlike that study, the current study was able to make comparisons, as it included users of non-green libraries. Our key finding is that green library users have a higher level of environmental awareness.

After evaluating the study’s hypotheses, the statement “Levels of environmental awareness and the environmental attitudes in daily life of those who receive environmental education are higher than those who do not receive education”(H1) is supported. Of the 436 students, 157 had received an environmental education and 279 had not. When the environmental awareness and attitude (EAA) averages in daily life were compared according to whether the users had received any environmental education, the averages of those who had received education were X = 3.5934, compared to those who had not received any education, which were X = 3.3740 [t (434) = 3.266; p = .001]. The difference was found to be significantly high, with a p < .05 significance level. In this study, the importance of education has emerged, supporting the statement that anything “acquired by attending a course on information skills can decisively influence thinking and may generate critical thinking when it comes to analyzing information” in the research conducted at the Transilvania University of Brasov (Repanovici & Landoy, 2015). The statement “There is a positive correlation between a library’s level of greenness and the environmental awareness and attitudes of its users in their daily lives”(H2) is unsupported. Considering the ANOVA analysis results of the research dimensions according to the university variable of the participants, there is no significant relationship between the greenness of the libraries and the environmental awareness and attitudes of the users in daily life. Finally, when the correlation coefficients in Table 3 are examined, it is seen that there is a significant one-to-one relationship at a .01 significance level between the “Environmental awareness and attitude” variable, “Green library perception,”“Supporting environmentally friendly practices,” and “Evaluation of green libraries” variables. Thus, the hypothesis that “A library’s level of greenness is positively correlated with how green its users perceive it to be” is supported (H3).

Conclusion

Universities play a critical role in tackling global environmental concerns, as their involvement in education, research and community can have long-term environmental and social repercussions. Libraries have a unique and special role in making the world a better place. Today, there are several libraries in various regions of the world that have green buildings. Greenness rating scales are important both for increasing the number of green libraries and for expanding their spheres of influence. This study measured the greenness levels of libraries and their users’ levels of environmental awareness, and aimed to contribute to improving the work of library managers, staff and researchers by evaluating libraries and their users together in the context of environmental sustainability. The presented work has helped to provide an overview on green libraries in a selection of Turkish universities, and their users perceptions and activities. The authors therefore call for more research in this area and concrete ideas to help provide for a sustainable future.

Of the 11 university libraries examined in the study, seven were evaluated as being in the green library category. Four university libraries were in the yellow category, which is close to green. The absence of a library in the red category, which is the furthest category from the green/environmentally friendly classification, means that these Turkish university libraries can be said to be environmentally friendly to a certain extent in the context of environmental sustainability. Among the most common measures applied are those such as turning off unnecessary lights, turning off computers and electronic devices at the end of the working day, collecting solid waste separately, donating resources that are not included in waste collection or sending them for recycling, and avoiding unnecessary printing. Even if all these practices are not carried out with environmental sensitivity in mind, one of the foundations of sustainable development is preventing the unnecessary use and waste of limited resources to enable future generations to meet their own needs. As in every institution, basic resources such as energy and water are used in libraries. Hundreds, and in some institutions, thousands of users make use of libraries every day. Among their key purposes are academic, cultural, and artistic use. It is important that while meeting users’ information needs, libraries take a role in environmental education or activities that will create environmental awareness in universities in the name of environmental sustainability. On the other hand, it is an important result that there is a significant relationship between libraries classified as green and the users’ evaluation of their libraries as green. The fact that the users of green libraries also evaluate their libraries as being green can be expressed as an indication that the green measures being conducted are perceived well and noticed by users.

However, when the averages of the variables are analyzed by examining the data, it is seen that the lowest average is in the information access and use category. Users seem to think that using information and communication technologies, searching the internet, searching databases, and producing and using electronic information resources such as e-books and e-journals does not have a negative impact on the environment. There seems to be an issue with awareness here. Training courses in environmental information literacy/green information literacy can be given by adding environmental literacy to the information literacy training courses currently being provided by university libraries. This is because users need awareness-raising training especially on the environmental effects of information access. Information literacy training in libraries can be considered as an opportunity for librarians in this regard. Information literacy, which includes environmental literacy, has been shown to be among the most beneficial practices that libraries can do in terms of environmental sustainability. Moreover, the analysis showed that most of the students had not received education about the environment but were keen to receive it.

University is the last stop of the formal education journey. Some of these graduates will go on to become teachers and lecturers, and some will be administrators and will be responsible for making important decisions in key places. It is important that environmentally conscious and environmentally literate individuals are involved when these duties are being performed. For this reason, not only improving students academically, but also raising environmentally literate individuals should be among a university’s main responsibilities. While meeting users’ information needs they can also benefit their users by providing educational or different activities in order to raise awareness about environmental issues and to increase users’ knowledge and awareness levels. When it comes to environmental sustainability, a sustainability movement that starts on campus and spreads to the whole environment can be ignited by ensuring that different faculties within a university collaborate and that the library takes a key role in leading this.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440231211432 – Supplemental material for Green Libraries and the User’s Perspective

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440231211432 for Green Libraries and the User’s Perspective by Hatice Demirtas Dogan and Bulut Gurpinar in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was done ethically, with privacy, consent, and appropriate reporting of people who participated in the study in mind.

ORCID iD

Bulut Gurpinar

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Agee

(2005). Collection evaluation: A foundation for collection development. Collection Building, 24(3), 92–95.

Akbulut

Alaca

Büyükçolpan

Cevhe

(2018). Üniversite kütüphanelerinde yeşil (çevreci) yaklaşımlar: Türkiye genelinde bir araştırma. Bilgi Dünyası, 19(2), 203–230.

Albertyn

Zinn

(2022). Green public libraries: Library users’ perspectives. Innovation, 06(1), 3–29.

Aldrich

R. S.

(2018). Sustainable Thinking: Ensuring Your Library’s future in an uncertain world. ALA Editions.

Antonelli

(2008). The green library movement: An overview and beyond. Electronic Green Journal, 1. https://doi.org/10.5070/g312710757

Ashcroft

Farrow

Watts

(2007). Public libraries and adult learners. Library Management, 28(3), 125–138.

Asogwa

(2014). Libraries in the information age a measure of performance, competencies and constraints in academic libraries in Nigerian universities. The Electronic Library, 32(5), 603–621.

Aulisio

G. J.

(2013). Green libraries are more than just buildings. Electronic Green Journal, 1, 10.

Chowdhury

(2012). Building environmentally sustainable information services: A green is research agenda. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 633–647.

10.

Doğan Demirtaş

. (2019). Çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve kütüphaneler: Yeşil kütüphaneler. (Environmental Sustainability and Libraries: Green Libraries [Master’s thesis, Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü].

11.

Erhabor

Don

(2016). Impact of environmental education on the knowledge and attitude of students towards the environment. The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(12), 5367–5375.

12.

Erwinsyah

(2022). Environmental knowledge, attitudes, and practices for behavior change of university students: The case of Indonesia. Journal of STEAM Education, 5(2), 181–192.

13.

Fedorowicz-Kruszewska

(2019). Sustainable libraries – Fashion or necessity? JLIS, 10(1), 92–101.

14.

Fedorowicz-Kruszewska

(2021). Green libraries and green librarianship – Towards conceptualization. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53, 645–654.

15.

Fedorowicz-Kruszewska

(2022). Green library as a subject of research – A quantitative and qualitative perspective. The Journal of Documentation, 78, 912–932.

16.

Forsyth

(2005). Public libraries and the millennium development goals. IFLA Journal, 31, 315–323.

17.

Fourie

(2012). A call for libraries to go green: An information behaviour perspective to draw interest from twenty-first century librarians. Library Hi-Tech, 30(3), 428–435.

18.

Future

A. O.

(2015). 2022 tarihinde University Leaders for a Sustainable Future. http://ulsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/TD.pdf

19.

Ghorbani

Babalhavaeji

Nooshinfard

(2017). Sustainable management requirements in libraries of Iran: A framework on grounded theory. Libri, 66, 213–222.

20.

Graham-Clare

(2022). 03 09, 2023 tarihinde. Springer Nature. https://www.springernature.com/gp/librarians/the-link/blog/blogposts-news-initiatives/what-librarians-can-do-to-support-sustainability/23146572

21.

GreenLibraries. (tarih yok) (2018). A Website for Information about Green and Sustainable Libraries. http://www.greenlibraries.org/

22.

Greenmetric. (2022). Ranking by Country 2022 - Turkey. Author. https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/rankings/ranking-by-country-2022/Turkey

23.

GreenMetric Criteria & Indicators. (1990). https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/about/criteria-indicator

24.

Güllü

Köksal

M. A.

Şengül

(2012). Dünyada ve türkiye’de Sürdürülebilir Kampüs Uygulamaları. Kalkınmada Anahtar Verimlilik Dergisi, 284, 24–30.

25.

Hollweg

K. S.

Taylor

J. S.

Bybee

R. W.

Marcinkowski

T. J.

McBeth

W. C.

Zoido

(2011). Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. North American Association for Environmental Education.

26.

Jankowska

M. A.

Marcum

J. W.

(2010). Sustainability challenge for academic libraries: Planning for the future. College & Research Libraries, 71, 160–170.

27.

Jones

L. W. W.

(2016). More than just a green building: Developing green strategies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong library. Library Management, 37, 373–384.

28.

Kang

(2020). Library directors’ concerns and attitudes towards going green and sustainability in China: An unexplored area. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52, 382–398.

29.

Kebe

Podjavorsek

(2019). Z zelenimi knjižnicami do zelene prihodnosti: pregled stanja v Sloveniji in po svetu [With green libraries to the green future: An overview of the situation in Slovenia and worldwide]. Knjižnica, 63(1/2), 283–305.

30.

Keenan

(2000). Concise Dictionary of Library and Information Science. Saur, K. G.

31.

Khosrow-Pour

(2013). Dictionary of information science and technology. Idea Group Reference.

32.

Kurbanoğlu

Boustany

(2014). From green libraries to green information. In Kurbanoğlu

(Ed.), Information literacy. Lifelong learning and digital citizenship in the 21st century (pp. 47–58). Springer.

33.

Levine-Clark

(2013). ALA glossary of library and information science. American Library Association.

34.

Lozano

Lukman

Lozano

F. J.

Huisingh

Lambrechts

(2013). Declarations for sustainability in higher education: Becoming better leaders, through addressing the University System. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 10–19.

35.

McDonald

J. a.-C.

(2018). Encyclopaedia of library and information sciences. Taylor & Francis Group.

36.

Merriam-Webster. (2022). Merriam-Webster dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com

37.

Meschede

Henkel

(2019). Library and information science and sustainable development: A structured literature review. The Journal of Documentation, 75, 1356–1369.

38.

Meyer

(2008). Global warming’s library challenge. Library Journal, 133(18), 26–29.

39.

Miller

(2010). Public libraries going green. ALA.

40.

Mulford

M. S.

Himmel

N. A.

(2010). How green is my library?Libraries Unlimited.

41.

Ogiemwonyi

Harun

A. B.

Alam

M. N.

Othman

B. A.

(2020). Do we care about going green? Measuring the effect of green environmental awareness, green product value and environmental attitude on green culture. An Insight from Nigeria. Environmental and Climate Technologies, 24, 254–274.

42.

Open Interview. (2021). Loida Garcia-Febo:High possibilities for librarians to collaborate globally to positively impact humans and nature. https://openinterview.org/2021/11/20/high-possibilities-for-librarians-to-collaborate-globally-to-positively-impact-humans-and-nature-loida-garcia-febo/

43.

Petra Hauke

K. U

. (2013). Going green as a marketing tool for libraries: Environmentally sustainable management practices [Conference session]. IFLA WLIC, Singapore.

44.

Purohit

(2013). Green library - A new concept of library [Conference session]. International Conference on Entrepreneurial Approaches to Librarianship, Manlibnet.

45.

Rachman

Y. B.

Ratnasari

(2022). Academic libraries’ sustainable preservation and conservation practices. Digital Technology & Culture, 51, 121–129.

46.

Ralph

Stubbs

(2014). Integrating environmental sustainability into universities. Higher Education, 67, 71–90.

47.

Repanovici

Landoy

(2015). Information literacy and environmental sustainability correlation in using and communicating information. In Kurbanoglu

Boustany

S. Špiranec

Grassian

Mizrachi

Roy

(Eds.), Information literacy: Moving toward sustainability. ECIL 2015. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28197-1_4, (vol. 552, pp. 31–37). Springer.

48.

Roth

C. E.

(1968). Curriculum Overview for Developing Environmentally Literate Citizens. Liberty Council of Schools, Lincoln, MA. Conservation Education Center, ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 032982.

49.

Roth

C. E.

(1992, September). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s (pp. 1–52). ERIC.

50.

Sahavirta

(2018). A garden on the roof doesn’t make a library green. In Hauke

Charney

Sahavirta

(Eds.), Going green: Implementing sustainable strategies in libraries around the world. Buildings, management, Programmes (pp. 5–21). De Gruyter Saur.

51.

Şeşen

Kuzucuoğlu

A. H

. (2020). The importance of green libraries in terms of sustainability. Journal of Balkan Libraries Union, 6(2), 10–16.

52.

Stark

M. R.

(2012). Information in place: Integrating sustainability into information literacy instruction. Electronic Green Journal, 1(32), 1–16.

53.

Tans

D. E.

(2017). Sustainable academic libraries: A campus partnership at Michigan State University. In Filho

W. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and practice of sustainable development in higher education (pp. 90–100). Springer International Publishing AG.

54.

The Talloires Declaration (1990). http://ulsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/TD.pdf

55.

Tseng

(2008). Green library design and evaluation: The Taipei public library, Taiwan. New Library World, 109, 321–336.

56.

UNEP. (1977). Tbilisi Declaration. https://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html

57.

WGBC. (2021). World Green Building Council. https://www.worldgbc.org/

58.

Wheaton

M. A.

(2018). Environmental literacy: Setting the stage (Environmental Literacy Brief, Vol. 1). https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/news/images/stanfordsocialecologylab-brief-1.pdf

59.

Williams

(2011). Environmental effects of information and communications technologies. Nature, 479(7373), 354–358.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB