Greening Interlibrary Loan Practices

1,387 views
1,307 views

Published on

All who share an interest in reducing the environmental impact of interlibrary loan operations were invited to attend this webinar in which Dennis Massie, OCLC Research program officer and author of the upcoming report, Greening ILL Practices, discussed a study of current resource sharing practices recently undertaken by a team of environmental impact consultants. Utilizing data provided by OCLC and gathered during interviews with staff at a dozen US libraries, the consultants were able to correlate specific interlending practices with measurable impacts on greenhouse gas emission levels. Dennis discussed the key recommendations indicated by the data and shared best practices already in place at several participant libraries. Attendees were also encouraged to share their own techniques for greening ILL operations.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,387
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Greening Interlibrary Loan Practices

  1. 1. Greening Interlibrary Loan Practices <br />Dennis Massie<br />Program Officer, OCLC Research<br />massied@oclc.org<br />OCLC Research Webinar<br />6 May 2010<br />
  2. 2. Bring on the Experts<br />California Environmental Associates<br />Aarthi Ananthanarayanan, Laura Keller<br />www.ceaconsulting.com<br />3-month study<br />Goal: reduce carbon footprint of entire resource sharing system<br />Emphasis on affordability<br />Inspired by Karen Bucky, Clark Art Institute, SEG<br />Funded by OCLC Research and OCLC Delivery Services<br />
  3. 3. Assignment: Green<br /><ul><li>CEA’s task: to measure the environmental impacts associated with ILL lending processes and recommend improvement options
  4. 4. Methodology:
  5. 5. Interviewed 12 representative research, art and public libraries within the OCLC system to identify best practices
  6. 6. Interviewed shipping, packaging, and library experts
  7. 7. Toured a large academic library and business school library to understand lending processes
  8. 8. Collected data from 10 libraries on consortia arrangements, shipping methods and guidelines, and packaging material composition and sourcing
  9. 9. Determined per book-mile greenhouse gas emissions and associated impacts from packaging, shipping, and paper use for 4 lending institutions
  10. 10. Recommendedimprovement options</li></ul>3<br />
  11. 11. Thank you to study participants<br />. <br />4<br />
  12. 12. What is a “Carbon Footprint”?<br /> A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact that human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide (CO2)<br /> “Carbon equivalent” used as a standard measurement <br /> Five gases in addition to CO2 are considered major greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:<br /><ul><li>Methane (CH4)
  13. 13. Nitrous oxide (N2O)
  14. 14. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
  15. 15. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
  16. 16. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)</li></ul>5<br />
  17. 17. Beyond the “Carbon Footprint”<br />ENERGY<br />WASTE<br />WATER<br />PRODUCTS / TRANSPORT<br />MATERIALS<br />Many organizations are going beyond a “carbon footprint” to <br />capture their full “environmental footprint”<br />6<br />
  18. 18. Environmental impacts: contributing factors<br />7<br />Key factors that contribute to the impacts from packaging, shipping, waste, and paper use:<br />Packaging<br />Shipping<br /><ul><li> container material type
  19. 19. padding type
  20. 20. weight
  21. 21. volume
  22. 22. recycled-content
  23. 23. recyclability
  24. 24. durability
  25. 25. mode of transport
  26. 26. vehicle type
  27. 27. distance traveled
  28. 28. load optimization</li></ul>Office paper use<br />Waste<br /><ul><li> type of waste
  29. 29. volume
  30. 30. weight
  31. 31. recyclability
  32. 32. efficient use
  33. 33. recycled content
  34. 34. supply chain certification</li></li></ul><li>Environmental impacts from ILL material distribution logistics have 3 major components:<br />Packaging material production (51% of total GHG emissions per package)<br />Shipping operations (48% of GHG emissions per package)<br />Waste disposal (1% of GHG emissions per package)1<br />While waste disposal is only 1% of GHG emissions, deciding to reuse packaging material rather than dispose and procure new material allows for the first 4 packaging steps to be eliminated, significantly reducing overall packaging impacts.<br />1.Franklin Associates. “Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging Operations for Shipment of Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods.” Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, April 2004. <br />These results corroborated by internal CEA analysis. Waste disposal impacts do not include methane emissions from decomposition in landfill. <br />1<br />2<br />3<br />Environmental impacts: packaging, shipping, waste<br />8<br />Packaging raw materials acquisition<br />Packaging materials manufacture<br />Packaging product manufacture<br />Transport of product to point of use<br />Packaging product use<br />Pick-up of packaged book<br />Transport to local hub<br />Packaged book sorting process<br />Transport packaged book to user<br />Packaging reused or disposed<br />
  35. 35. Emissions intensity of packaging choices<br />9<br />The table below shows the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production, transport, and disposal of various different types of packaging. Note that the mailing bags (on the left) generate significantly fewer emissions than the cardboard boxes (on the right).1<br />Cardboard boxes<br />Mailing bags<br />1. Franklin Associates. “Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging Operations for Shipment of Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods.” Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, April 2004. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/sw/packaging/LifeCycleInventory.pdf.<br />
  36. 36. Environmental impacts: office paper use<br />General Practice<br />Best Practice<br />Lending Paper Flow: Copy <br />[1 page]<br />Print request and process/verify<br />[10+ pages]<br />Photocopy/print article<br />Copy<br />Mail to requester<br />11+ sheets <br />[0]<br />Process/Verify request electronically<br />[0]<br />Scan article and convert as needed<br />[0]<br />Send article electronically <br />0 sheets <br />Lending Paper Flow: Loan<br />[1]<br />Print pick slip<br />[0.16]<br />Generate mailing label<br />[1]<br />Print book band<br />[0.25 per page]<br />Shipping instructions sheet<br />[1 per page]<br />Print return paperwork<br />Mail item<br />Loan<br />3.5<br />sheets <br />[0]<br />Reuse pick slip for book band<br />[0]<br />Reuse packing instructions<br />[0.5]<br />Print pick slip 3 per page<br />[0.5]<br />Print return paperwork 2 per page<br />[0.16]<br />Generate mailing label<br />1.16 sheets <br />Mail item<br />[0]<br />Include packaging instructions on book band<br />Check out the Illiad Workflow Toolkit for time-saving tips on automating workflow, templates, and eliminating paper processes:http://toolkit.idsproject.org<br />10<br />
  37. 37. Environmental impacts: office paper use<br />11<br />Paper facts<br />By reducing loan paperwork from 3.5 to 1.16 pieces of paper, a mid-size library with a volume of 10,000 loans per year would reduce paper use by 234 lbs per year, and <br /><ul><li> Save 3 million BTUs of energy
  38. 38. Stop 688 lbs CO2e from being emitted
  39. 39. Reduce 2,600 gallons of wastewater
  40. 40. Prevent the creation of 223 lbs of solid waste</li></ul>By reducing article loan paper usefrom 11 (or more) to 0 pieces of paper, a mid-size library with a volume of 5,000 requests would reduce paper use by 550 lbs per year, and <br /><ul><li> Eliminate about 1 ton of wood use or 7 trees
  41. 41. Save 8 million BTUs of energy
  42. 42. Stop 1,618 lbs CO2e from being emitted
  43. 43. Reduce 6,110 gallons of wastewater
  44. 44. Prevent the creation of 525 lbs of solid waste1</li></ul>Best Practice: University of Tennessee at Knoxville ILL staff saves paper and staff time using a unique loan request template that doubles as a pick slip and return paperwork. They print it on special sheets that are half label, half copy paper, so outgoing and incoming mailing labels are also printed in one step, using only one piece of paper total. Book bands are printed 2 to a page, resulting in 1.5 pieces of paper per transaction. <br />Remember to reuse and recycle office paper: Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 7,000 gallons of water, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, and 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity — enough energy to power the average American home for five months. Source: EPA, 2008<br />1. Paper Task Force. “Paper Calculator.” Environmental Defense Fund. http://www.edf.org/papercalculator (accessed January 5, 2010). <br />
  45. 45. ILLiad “Half paper/half label” Template<br /><ul><li>Developed by Tracy Luna, U of Tennessee at Knoxville
  46. 46. luna@utk.edu
  47. 47. Worked with local printer, King Business Solutions
  48. 48. www.kbfcorp.com
  49. 49. 800-251-9236
  50. 50. Shared with colleagues
  51. 51. As of July 2009, hybrids cost $1979 for 15,000</li></li></ul><li>Library profile: University of Miami<br /><ul><li>Location: Miami, Florida
  52. 52. Consortia arrangements (lending):
  53. 53. 52% Tampa Bay Library Consortium (uses DLLI carrier)
  54. 54. 35% Kudzu / ASURL (Association of Southeast University Research Libraries)
  55. 55. 5% SHARES
  56. 56. 8% non-consortia
  57. 57. Packaging types:
  58. 58. 40% cardboard boxes (reused)
  59. 59. 30% paper envelopes (some purchased new)
  60. 60. 30% bubble envelopes (reused)
  61. 61. Reusable nylon bags for couriers; some are lined with bubble mailers
  62. 62. Padding materials: primarily newsprint, also bubble wrap and Styrofoam peanuts
  63. 63. Packaging methods: packaging done in ILL area (not mailroom)
  64. 64. Shipping methods: FedEx Ground (3x/wk), DLII and Lanter (1x/day) for consortia
  65. 65. Best practices: electronic requests and article transfers; does not print articles prior to sending; minimizes paper use; tries not to rip envelopes so can reuse</li></ul>13<br />
  66. 66. Library profile: Clark Art Institute<br /><ul><li>Location: Williamstown, MA
  67. 67. Consortia arrangements (lending):
  68. 68. 50% RLG SHARES (art museum libraries is a subset)
  69. 69. 50% non-consortia
  70. 70. Packaging types:
  71. 71. 98% cardboard boxes (reused)
  72. 72. 2% bubble envelopes
  73. 73. Padding materials: each book wrapped in bubble wrap (new and used); used shredded paper as needed
  74. 74. Packaging methods: Clark library does its own mailing in-house
  75. 75. Shipping methods: UPS Ground (1x/day); USPS for Canada (only 1% of shipments)
  76. 76. Best practices: doesn’t buy any new boxes; ships only ground, not air; spends only $150/yr on packaging</li></ul>14<br />
  77. 77. Library profile: Stanford University<br />15<br /><ul><li>Location: Stanford, CA
  78. 78. Consortia arrangements (lending):
  79. 79. 32% UC System
  80. 80. 30% RLCP
  81. 81. 20% SHARES
  82. 82. 18% non-consortia
  83. 83. Packaging types:
  84. 84. 85% cardboard boxes
  85. 85. 5% cardboard mailers
  86. 86. 5% bubble mailers
  87. 87. Nylon bags and plastic bins (For Tricor and RLCP)
  88. 88. Padding materials:
  89. 89. Tricor: wrap in recycled bubble mailers and place in nylon pouch (or plastic bin if DVDs, VHS, etc.)
  90. 90. RLCP: plastic bins lined with plastic bags; occasionally pad with reused materials (e.g. envelopes)
  91. 91. UC Berkeley (ILB, RLCP, and ILL): items shipped together in a bin, stacked inside a large plastic bag
  92. 92. Packaging methods: packaging done in mailroom, separate from ILL area
  93. 93. Shipping methods: Tricor courier for UC system, UPS for SHARES, USPS for non-consortialsharing
  94. 94. Best practices: electronic requests and article transfers; minimal packaging for courier shipments; reuse of padding materials</li></li></ul><li>Library profile: University of Chicago<br />16<br /><ul><li>Location: Chicago, Illinois
  95. 95. Consortia arrangements (lending):
  96. 96. 41% CIC
  97. 97. 24% Illinet (ILDS)
  98. 98. 14% RLG SHARES
  99. 99. 2% Center for Research Libraries (CRL)
  100. 100. 19% non-consortia
  101. 101. Packaging types:
  102. 102. Reusable canvas bags and gray totes (for CIC, ILDS)
  103. 103. 100% cardboard boxes containing 90% post-consumer recycled content (80% are new, 20% are reused)
  104. 104. Padding materials: newsprint and bubble wrap used in every box, 20% is reused
  105. 105. Packaging methods: students help pack for UPS
  106. 106. Shipping methods:Lanter (1x/day) for CIC and ILDS, USPS for international, UPS for all other
  107. 107. Best practices: tracks and monitors shipping data closely; electronic requests and article transfers; uses custom holdings to source materials; ships UPS ground not air; reuses newsprint and some bubble bags; prints bookbands 2/pg and shipping labels 3/pg; shipping boxes contain 90% post-consume recycled content</li></li></ul><li>17<br /><ul><li>24,000 lb CO2: Emissions from the energy use of a single family home in one year
  108. 108. 11,013 lb CO2: Emissions from the average car
  109. 109. 196 lb CO2: Emissions from a ten gallon tank of gasoline1
  110. 110. 16.44 lb CO2: Approximate emissions from the manufacture and distribution of a new book2</li></ul>Note: This analysis covers the roundtrip impact of ILL lending operations at each institution. Borrowing was excluded from this calculation to avoid double-counting of emissions. Shipping and some of the packaging impacts listed here would be considered within an organization’s Scope 3 emissions. <br />*Packaging impacts are calculated in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), incorporating the impacts of methane and nitrous oxide (greenhouse gases significant in the production of packaging materials); CO2e information was not available for the shipping impact calculation, therefore CO2 impacts alone were calculated.<br />1. “Greenhouse Gas Equivalency Calculator.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy- resources/calculator.html (accessed January 6, 2010).<br /> 2. Sibley, Lisa. “Cleantech Group report: E-readers a win for carbon emissions.” CleanTech Group, August 19, 2009. http://cleantech.com/news/4867/cleantech-group-finds-positive-envi.<br />Environmental impact analysis – Overview<br />
  111. 111. Observations: Packaging<br />18<br /><ul><li>Reusing materials is key. Stanford University and the University of Chicago have highest packaging per book emissions because they reuse minimal amounts of packaging materials compared to Clark and Miami.
  112. 112. Reusable courier bags and bins help to reduce packaging emissions. Clark’s per book mile emissions from packaging are higher than Miami’s because Clark is not a member of a resource-sharing consortium, while Miami’s courier provides reusable packaging.
  113. 113. For new materials, choose less energy intensive products. Miami, which has the lowest per book mile emissions, reuses a large quantity of packaging materials, especially boxes. For new materials, it purchases jiffy mailers which require less energy to produce than boxes.
  114. 114. Recycled content boxes reduce resource use. The University of Chicago uses boxes which contain 90% post-consumer recycled content, significantly reducing resources required to produce packaging materials (~80 trees/yr1). </li></ul>1. Paper Task Force. “Paper Calculator.” Environmental Defense Fund. http://www.edf.org/papercalculator (accessed March 4, 2010). <br />
  115. 115. Observations: Shipping<br />19<br /><ul><li>Aggregate materials to minimize shipments. Clark and Chicago primarily use boxes to ship loans; however, Clark’s per book-mile emissions for ground shipments are higher because it aggregates shipments less frequently than Chicago (due to Clark’s smaller volume of loans).
  116. 116. Minimize package size. University of Miami has the lowest ground shipping emissions per book-mile. It uses 60% bags to ship materials, compared to other schools that use primarily boxes. Bags take up less space on the truck and can therefore help reduce carbon emissions and shipping costs.
  117. 117. Packaging size matters for courier shipments. Totes occupy approximately 4.5 times as much space as nylon bags. For example, Miami’s courier uses nylon bags while Chicago’s uses totes.
  118. 118. Ground transportation produces fewer emissions that air. While shipments traveling by air make up less than 10% of Miami’s total book-miles, they account for 35% of its emissions.
  119. 119. Source materials locally if possible. While Stanford and Chicago use similar shipment methods, the average Stanford loan travels ~700 miles further – in part because of the school’s geographic location. By comparison, the average loan within Stanford’s local consortium travels just one third the distance of its Chicago counterpart.</li></ul>*This represents the emissions from moving 1 book 100 miles to normalize for loan volume and distance.<br />
  120. 120. Implications<br />What the data tells us… <br />Packaging impacts will be minimized by:<br /><ul><li>Reusing packaging materials (cuts footprint nearly in half!)
  121. 121. Joining local consortia that use reusable totes and nylon or canvas envelopes and require no additional packaging
  122. 122. Promoting reusability by using durable materials and handling them carefully to help others reduce their footprints</li></ul>Shipping impacts will be minimized by:<br /><ul><li>Using the smallest size packaging possible (right-sizing to loan materials)
  123. 123. Sourcing books/materials from the nearest lenders
  124. 124. Aggregating shipments (loans and returns) to the same destination
  125. 125. Using a low-impact mode of transportation (ground, not air)
  126. 126. Choosing fuel-efficient vehicles</li></ul>Remember: CO2e is just one tool to gauge environmental impacts – shipping and packaging operations also have implication for resource use, toxics, and waste production that should be considered as well.<br />20<br />
  127. 127. As we already know, ILL’ers rock<br /><ul><li>Libraries are already doing a lot to be green:
  128. 128. Reusing packaging materials
  129. 129. Bundling outgoing shipments
  130. 130. Sourcing books from local institutions
  131. 131. The biggest opportunity to improve the environmental profile of the ILL system is for libraries across the system to adopt the best practices in packaging and shipping practiced by surveyed libraries
  132. 132. The Library Greening Toolkitwill contain lists of these best practices.</li></ul>21<br />
  133. 133. Library Greening Toolkit<br />ILL Best Practices Observed<br /><ul><li>Packaging
  134. 134. Shipping
  135. 135. Office Paper Use</li></ul>Greening Checklist for Library Workplace<br /><ul><li>Reduce solid waste and recycle
  136. 136. Conserve energy
  137. 137. Conserve water
  138. 138. Pollution prevention</li></ul>Additional Resources<br /><ul><li>Comparison of Shipping Systems
  139. 139. What is a Carbon Footprint?
  140. 140. List of additional resources</li></ul>22<br />
  141. 141. Best practices observed: packaging (I)<br />GOAL: Reuse packaging materials, minimize their size and weight, and utilize materials with maximum post-consumer recycled content.<br />1. Reuse materials:<br /><ul><li>Sort materials that are received into “reuse”, “recycle”, and “trash” bins [Chicago, Emory, Stanford]
  142. 142. Collect used boxes and shipping materials from staff and other departments at the university (not just the library) for reuse[NYU]
  143. 143. Used shredded paper can serve as padding [Emory, Princeton];reuse messy loose fill materials such as packing peanuts or shredded paper by placing them in plastic bags and then using as padding material [NYU]
  144. 144. If waterproofing is necessary, use plastic bags. They are lightweight and can be reused and recycled. [Stanford]
  145. 145. Bubble and jiffy mailers can be used as box padding if no-longer mailable[Chicago, Emory, Stanford]
  146. 146. The following materials can be reused: cardboard boxes, paper-filled jiffy bags (if not stapled), bubble mailers, bubble wrap, Kraft paper, shredded paper filler, Styrofoam peanuts, rubber bands [Emory]</li></ul>2. Procure materials that are durable, contain recycled content, and are recyclable:<br /><ul><li>If it becomes necessary to purchase new materials, try to source materials that are durable, contain recycled-content, and are recyclable
  147. 147. Cardboard mailers (e.g. U-Line Easy Fold) are recommended because they are durable, can be reused several times, contain 20-30% recycled content, and can be folded to the size of the item which reduces the volume of the package and the need for additional padding material [Emory, Getty]</li></ul>23<br />
  148. 148. Best practices observed: packaging (II)<br />3. Recycle materials at end of life:<br /><ul><li>If material can no longer be reused, recycle whenever possible [all]</li></ul>4. Other innovative practices:<br /><ul><li>If mailroom is separate from the library, ensure that there is communication so that library materials received can be reused by the mailroom in outgoing shipments [Chicago, Stanford]
  149. 149. If bundling books for shipments in bins/totes, use rubber bands rather than additional packaging [Emory]
  150. 150. If eliminating paper files from automating workflow, use freed-up space to store packaging materials [Stanford Business]
  151. 151. Canvas bags are extremely durable and reusable. (Note that stickers placed on canvas bags can leave goo behind [Swarthmore]; choose bags with clear plastic windows for shipping labels. [Chicago, Stanford]
  152. 152. Participate in a local delivery consortia; they are often cheaper, reduce book miles traveled, and do not require packaging other than a canvas bag or a paper routing slip rubber-banded to the books and placed in reusable totes [Chicago, Emory, Stanford]</li></ul>5. Practices to avoid:<br /><ul><li>Avoid Styrofoam peanuts; they are not recyclable. [Stanford]
  153. 153. Do not staple or rip open paper jiffy bags (they explode and can’t be reused) [Miami]</li></ul>24<br />
  154. 154. GOAL: Reduce book-miles traveled and encourage fuel-efficient modes of transport.<br />Source books locally by utilizing local borrowing group consortia agreements [Chicago, Emory, NYU]<br />Set up “custom holdings” system to automate a lender string based geography [Chicago, Emory]<br />Ship via “ground” mode rather than “air” [Chicago, Emory]<br />Request hybrid electric vehicles at FedEx and UPS<br />Encourage use of/campus testing of fuel-efficient or hybrid vehicles for deliveries from offsite storage facilities<br />Avoid multiple shipments to same destination by bundling returns with outgoing loans [Chicago, Emory]<br />Scan and send articles and book chapters electronically to avoid physical transportation of materials[Chicago, Emory]<br />Use staff at offsite storage facilities to scan and send articles electronically [NYU, Princeton]<br />25<br />Best practices observed: shipping<br />
  155. 155. GOAL: Reduce, reuse, recycle, and procure sustainably<br />1. Minimize use of paper<br /><ul><li>Verify availability of lending materials before printing any pick slips [Emory, NYU, Princeton, Stanford]
  156. 156. Use electronic automation tools (such as Rapid Manager or BSCAN ILL) for article lending requests and tracking [Chicago, Minnesota, NYU]
  157. 157. If borrowers do not use ILLIAD or Odyssey, send articles by email or remote URL. [Emory, Princeton, Stanford]
  158. 158. Use paperless billing and record-keeping [Clark]
  159. 159. When printing pick slips, book bands, and mailing labels, fit multiple to a page [Chicago, Clark, Emory, Miami]
  160. 160. Scan articles and send electronically via Odyssey or Ariel [Chicago, Emory, Stanford]
  161. 161. Ask article vendors to allow, on a trial basis, sending e-versions of articles without printing first[Minnesota]
  162. 162. If overhead scanners are not available, explore campus options for photocopiers with scanning function [Chicago]
  163. 163. Save microfilm/microfiche images to USB drives rather than printing [Chicago, Emory, Stanford]
  164. 164. Scanning equipment is expensive and can be fussy – take the time to develop a user manual to speed up staff training [C. Sweet]
  165. 165. Engage an ILL mentor to help maximize use of workflow automation tools [NYU, SUNY Geneseo]</li></ul>26<br />Best practices observed: office paper use (I)<br />
  166. 166. 2. Reuse paper <br /><ul><li>Make photocopies on the back sides of scratch paper [Minnesota, NYU]
  167. 167. Reuse back side of scratch paper for notes (cut sheets in halves or quarters) [Stanford]
  168. 168. Reuse pick slip as mailing record, book band, or return paperwork [Clark, Stanford]</li></ul>3. Procure paper from sustainable sources<br /><ul><li>Maximize recycled content of paper purchased (30% post-consumer recycled content is often cost-neutral)
  169. 169. Purchase FSC-certified paper when possible</li></ul>27<br />Best practices observed: office paper use (II)<br />
  170. 170. Cost barriers:<br /><ul><li>Cost of greener (durable, recyclable, compostable) packaging materials limits their use
  171. 171. Cost of overhead scanners limits ability to send articles electronically without printing
  172. 172. Cost of recycled-content paper limits its use</li></ul>28<br />Barriers to greening (I)<br />
  173. 173. Operational barriers:<br /><ul><li>While return items are not time-sensitive and may be held and then bundled with loan items, loan items must be sent immediately, limiting their aggregation and requiring more shipments
  174. 174. Fragile items require additional padding
  175. 175. Lack of communication between mailroom and library makes reuse of packaging difficult
  176. 176. Lack of storage space for used packaging materials discourages reuse
  177. 177. The time it takes to preserve and reuse old packaging materials may outweigh the avoided costs of new packaging materials</li></ul>29<br />Barriers to greening (II)<br />
  178. 178. Systemic barriers:<br /><ul><li>Licensing agreements require that articles be printed prior to scanning electronically, resulting in unnecessary paper use
  179. 179. Lack of system for sharing best practices
  180. 180. Lack of incentives to improve environmental friendliness of activities</li></ul>30<br />Barriers to greening (III)<br />
  181. 181. Summary of findings<br /><ul><li>The largest environmentalimpacts directlyassociated with ILL operations are packaging, shipping, and paper use
  182. 182. Libraries are already doing a lot to be green:
  183. 183. Reusing packaging materials
  184. 184. Bundling outgoing shipments
  185. 185. Sourcing books from local institutions
  186. 186. Further greening activities may be constrained by budget limitations, operational constraints, and systematic barriers
  187. 187. The biggest opportunity to improve the environmental profile of the ILL system is for libraries across the system to adopt the best practices in packaging and shipping displayed by surveyed institutions</li></ul>31<br />
  188. 188. Recommendations<br />Implement the current best practices of libraries surveyed<br /><ul><li>Reuse packaging materials
  189. 189. Promote reusability of packaging to help others reduce their footprints
  190. 190. Use the smallest size packaging possible (form-fitting)
  191. 191. Source books/materials from the nearest lenders
  192. 192. Aggregate shipments (loans and returns) to same destination
  193. 193. Ship via ground, not air</li></ul>Communicate: set-up portal / listserv for sharing greening and best practice information<br />Consider launching a purchasing consortium to lower costs of packaging materials, office copy paper, and overhead scanners<br />Team together to influence A) article subscription licensing agreements to allow e-sending without print copying, and B) UPS/FedEx to use hybrid vehicles for shipments 3) courier services to implement logistics best practices<br />32<br />
  194. 194. Recommendations in a Nutshell<br />Near > Far<br />Ground > Air<br />Re-use > New<br />Mailers > Boxes<br />Aggregate > 1X1<br />Nylon bags > plastic bins<br />30% recycled = new ($-wise)<br />
  195. 195. The Sharing of the Green<br />Webinars like this<br />Presentation at ALA in D.C.<br />Formal report published this month<br />Library Greening Toolkit on OCLC Web site<br />Greening check list<br />ILL best practices<br />Resources<br />Keeping the conversation going: ILL-L, blog<br />
  196. 196. SHARE YOUR OWN BEST PRACTICES<br />Questions? Comments?<br />

×