• Using Data to Plan Library Renovations

      Hart, Kristin; Bram, Katie (2016-06)
      SUNY Maritime librarians have an opportunity to overhaul their space as part of a SUNY grant for an “Academic Success Center” — the first renovation of this AIA-award winning space since the 1970s. The library needed to determine how to adapt its space for exciting new purposes, incorporating its needs with the needs of the Learning Center, the administration, the faculty, and the students. We used surveys, observations, and visioning groups to quantify these needs and elicit ideas. This presentation will examine how we collected and used various forms of data to guide our process, including successes and pitfalls.
    • Water-Quality Assessment of Two Slow-Moving Sandy-Bottom Sites on the Saw Mill River, New York

      Warkentine, Barbara E.; Rachlin, Joseph (Eagle Hill Institute, 2015)
      We selected 2 sites on the Saw Mill River and conducted biological assessments of water quality using macroinvertebrate composition. Assessment metrics used were: Shannon-Weiner diversity, evenness, species richness, Hilsenhoff biotic index (HBI), Ephemeroptera—Plecoptera—Trichoptera richness (EPT), and non-Chironomidae and Oligochaete (NCO) richness. Water temperature, pH, conductivity, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen, and water flow and velocity were not significantly different across sites. Shannon-Weiner diversity values were 2.32 (evenness = 0.20) for Chappaqua and 2.68 (evenness = 0.31) for Hawthorne. Species and NCO richness for Chappaqua were 49 and 22, respectively, and for Hawthorne were 44 and 23, respectively. HBI was 7.99 for Chappaqua and 7.69 for Hawthorne. Both sites had equal EPT values of 5. Based on macroinvertebrate assessment indices, we classified water quality at these sites as non-impacted.
    • You’ve Done PDA, What About PDW?: Patron-Driven Weeding as Engagement and Collection Management

      Hyams, Rebecca; Hart, Kristin (2016-01-21)
      Patron-driven acquisition has become a regular part of the collections development process in many libraries. If we can trust our patrons to provide valuable input on what types of materials belong in the library’s collection, can we trust them to also provide opinions on what should no longer be on our shelves? The authors look at several aspects of their crowd-sourced weeding experience, including the differences in how students and faculty selected items. While the items students selected inadvertently used many of the same criteria librarians would typically use, did the faculty take a different approach? What are the pitfalls in asking users to contribute in weeding? Did getting the community involved help foster more connectedness to the library?