Click here to skip to content

Digital versus print as a preservation format - expert views from international comparator libraries

As part of a study by the British Library into long-term growth in our collections and our corresponding requirement for physical storage, the Library sought the views of professionals in comparator libraries in Europe, North America and Australasia on the suitability of digital material as a long-term archival surrogate for print. Helen Shenton, the British Library's Head of Collection Care, produced a report.

Method | Findings | Update of CSR 2002 survey | Conclusions
Acknowledgements | References | Recipients of questionnaire

Report

In her book Tomorrow's People, Susan Greenfield summarises Neil Gershenfeld's catalogue of the virtues of books over computers enumerated in When Things Start to Think:

"Books boot instantly, and have a very high-contrast/high resolution display; they offer fast random access to any page, with instant visuals and tactile feedback; they are easily annotated with no need for batteries or maintenance; finally, they are robustly packaged. By contrast, the laptop meets none of these specifications.the only disadvantage of books is that they convey static information, whilst computers give changing information."

 1. Method

The expert views of the directors of 16 major international libraries in Europe, North America and Australasia were sought, of which 12 were national libraries and 14 had legal deposit responsibilities (a short profile of each comparator library is given at the end of this document). They were asked to address the following three questions:

i. What is your expert view of the suitability of digital as a long-term preservation archival surrogate for print where the identical content is available in parallel formats?

ii. If content is available in parallel formats, do you currently choose to keep the print format or the digital format or both for preservation purposes?

iii. In your expert view, do you foresee this situation changing in the next five years?

In addition, they were asked to update their responses to a questionnaire on anticipated storage requirements prepared by the British Library for Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) for the Comprehensive Spending Review 2002.

 2. Findings

2i. What is your expert view of the suitability of digital as a long-term preservation archival surrogate for print where the identical content is available in parallel formats?

  • In summary, digital is not generally viewed as a suitable long-term preservation archival surrogate for print. It is currently regarded more as an access medium. As a preservation medium, digital was generally seen as unstable, experimental, immature, unproven on a mass scale and unreliable in the long term.
  • Print is generally viewed as the archival format for national deposit libraries, to be stored in optimum storage conditions to ensure its longevity. Several national libraries are planning new storage facilities. Collecting and storing print formats is currently seen as insurance against the volatility of the current state of digital preservation.
  • Digital is not generally viewed as a long-term preservation medium due to a variety of reasons that are not just technical, but range from legal, political, strategic, financial, managerial and organisational to the availability of appropriate skills.
  • There is a general expectation that, when appropriate life cycle management actions are taken, it is should become technically possible in the future to assure long-term preservation for digital content. Major concerns centre around the sustainability of digital preservation from financial, strategic and managerial angles.
  • The one national library that has a policy of archiving the digital format if parallel formats are available is the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (KB) in the Netherlands, which is committed to safeguarding permanent access information, particularly electronic scholarly journals. The KB is also building new storage for its print collections as this format is not reducing in output.
  • The highest priority for archiving digital material is generally "born digital" because no print version has ever existed, and scholarly e-journals, some of which are being only produced electronically particularly in the medical sciences.
  • The lack of confidence in digital is partly attributable to the lack of trusted, digital repositories. Furthermore, the national libraries are themselves being looked to as being those trusted digital repositories and are taking a cautious line by relying on the safer, print version due to the financial, technical and organisational implications.
  • The preservation of the print publication as 'artefact' is becoming an increasingly important factor, whereby the look and feel of the print format has intrinsic value for future research. Similarly, safeguarding the authenticity of the national published output for legal and research purposes are cited as reasons for collecting and retaining the print format.

2ii. If content is available in parallel formats, do you currently choose to keep the print format or the digital format or both for preservation purposes?

  • Of the 15 responses received, six were currently choosing to keep both formats for preservation purpose, six were currently choosing to keep print only, one was currently choosing to keep digital only and two responses were unclear.
  • Those choosing to keep both formats for preservation copies made the following points. If there is any doubt which format is the most reliable one, all formats are archived. Microfilm is also a crucial preservation medium. Electronic journals are seen as pioneering areas, especially the JSTOR and KB/Elsevier models, with licence negotiation with publishers being a factor. The legal responsibility to retain digital formats is not enacted in all national libraries and so experimental work, such as web archiving, is going on. The majority of the UK libraries canvassed were in this category.
  • Those choosing to keep the print format for preservation purposes made the point that in addition to the technical, legal and resourcing issues associated with reliable digital preservation solutions, there are practical and local strategic reasons for continuing to only collect print manifestations.
  • The national library choosing to keep the digital format for preservation purposes also made the point that storage for print material is an ongoing need and a new preservation storage facility for print is planned.
  • The two unclear respondents were either reviewing the policy as to the format of choice, or were experimenting with digital access in one location and storage of the printed version in another institution.

2iii. In your expert view, do you foresee this situation changing in the next five years?

  • There was a mixed response, ranging from no change envisaged to dramatic change anticipated within five years to changes only foreseeable over a longer time frame. Several respondents could foretell change but qualified it with a number of critical factors. These critical dependencies ranged from investment by the computer industry to more financial and managerial experience of digital archiving built up within institutions; from proof that long-term digital archiving is cheaper than print preservation to proof that digital and print manifestations are identical. The majority of the UK respondents were in this latter category.
  • Those who did not foresee the situation changing in the next five years enumerated legal considerations, the need for substantial financial investment in digital infrastructure, no significant decline in print publishing and displayed scepticism after repeated prophecies of change.
  • Those who foresaw the situation changing in the next five years cited the increase in digital publishing, the pressure on storage space and increased confidence in digital preservation technologies as contributory factors.

 3. Update of Comprehensive Spending Review 2002 survey*

Eleven of the libraries had previously supplied information on eight questions about their annual growth rate and current storage capacity for print collections, the percentage of occupancy, their future storage plans, their policies towards disposal and digital preservation. All were growing at between 1.4 km to 10 km per year.

Generally there was either no change over the past 18 months or the updated figures, such as linear kilometre growth, were consistent with predicted rates. The original survey, with updated responses where applicable, is available in pdf format.

*Method of bidding for additional Government funding

 4. Conclusions

  • There is little confidence in the robustness of digital preservation and digital (where there are alternative manifestations) in all but one institution is not regarded as the format of choice for long-term archiving.
  • All libraries are making provision for the storage of continuing growth of print formats. This is not just in national libraries, for example, a recent study of US libraries identified more than 400 academic library facility projects had been completed since 1995 (Shill).
  • It is not a question of storing either print formats or digital formats but, for the foreseeable future, both formats require archiving to ensure long-term access to the collections of national libraries.
  • Even in the one case of a national library that has taken a stance to archive only digital after substantial investment over many years in its digital infrastructure, it is still receiving print publications and the levels are not declining.
  • Several national libraries are planning for new storage facilities for print publications or have them underway. The National Library of Norway has recently completed a major, seminal storage facility. It emphasises the point that the life span of paper/print collections is dramatically increased when kept under optimum environmental storage conditions.
  • The sustainability issues are not to be underestimated. The anticipated transition period is not only seen as possibly spanning many years, but that this transition period will potentially bring additional costs. This finding was reinforced in a recent study "Comparing Library Resource Allocations for the Paper and the Digital Library" in which 11 Association of Research Libraries (ARL) librarians carried out a hypothetical exercise to identify resources required for an all-paper library and an all-digital library;

".Concern expressed by participants related to the pace of transition from paper to digital media. While an all-digital library may require fewer resources than an all-paper library, it is plausible that a mixed paper-digital library may be more costly to operate than either an all-paper or all-digital library since a mixed library requires most of the resources of both. "Participants expressed the concern that the transition to predominantly digital media may burden libraries with significantly increased costs in the short to medium term, and that it may be some time (years, decades) before the full cost benefits of digital media are fully realised."

Helen Shenton,
Head of Collection Care

10.i.2004

 Acknowledgements

With many thanks to all the organisations that contributed to this work in such an open and helpful manner. With equal thanks to British Library colleagues Hannah Jenkins, Clive Field, Andy Stephens, Shirley O'Neill and especially Eileen Kinghan.

 References

Tomorrow's People, Susan Greenfield, Allen Lane, London, 2003, p 15

"Creating a Better Place: Physical Improvements in Academic Libraries, 1995-2002" Harold B Shill and Shawn Tonner. College and Research Libraries 64 (6) November 2003

Comparing Library Resource Allocations for the Paper and the Digital Library. An Exploratory Study. Lynn Silipigni Connaway and Stephen R Lawrence. p.15

 Recipients of questionnaire

UK

National Library of Wales*
National Library of Scotland*
Oxford University Library Services*
Cambridge University Library*

Mainland Europe

Bibliothèque Nationale de France*
Deutsche Bibliothek*
Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library of the Netherlands)*
Kongelige Bibliotek (Royal Library of Denmark)*
Kungliga Biblioteket (Royal Library of Sweden)*
Helsingin Yliopiston Kirjasto (National Library of Finland)*
Nasjonalbiblioteket (National Library of Norway)*

North America

Library of Congress*
National Library of Canada*
Harvard University Library
Yale University Library

Australasia

National Library of Australia*

* denotes legal deposit responsibility

Back to top Back to top