Architectural
Institute of Japan
Translated Paper
Study on the relationship between the seated area
features and floor plan compositions of open
reading spaces in public libraries in Japan
Yuki Kojima1 and Hisashi Komatsu2
1
KUME SEKKEI Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan 2Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
Correspondence
Hisashi Komatsu, Graduate School of Environmental Stud-
ies, Nagoya University, 1 Furo-Cho Chikusa-Ku, Nagoya,
464-8603, Japan.
Email: c42719a@cc.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Funding Information
No funding information is provided.
The Japanese version of this paper was published in Volume
87 Number 792, pages 307–317, https://doi.org/10.3130/
aija.87.307 of Journal of Architectural and Planning
(Transactions of AIJ). The authors have obtained permis-
sion for secondary publication of the English version in
another journal from the Editor of Journal of Architec-
tural and Planning (Transactions of AIJ). This paper is
based on the translation of the Japanese version with
some slight modifications.
Received January 18, 2023; Accepted February 21, 2023
doi: 10.1002/2475-8876.12346
1. Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
Since the Library Law (1950) promulgated in Japan after
World War II, Japanese public libraries have transformed their
basic model from storage to the use of books and materials,
from closed shelves to open shelves, and from reading to bor-
rowing.1,2 Since 1990, they have provided various services,
including support for children’s reading activities and business
support. In line with this movement, spatial planning has been
seen to provide services that encourage a wide range of citi-
zens and enable users to stay for multiple purposes.3,4 How-
ever, even today, from the perspective of book management
and space utilization with high area efficiency, examples can
be seen where bookshelves and reading seats are uniformly
arranged. According to the planning theory of open reading
rooms, it is essential to divide ample one-room style spaces
into sections with furniture, etc., for each user attribute of
book arrangement, rather than dividing one room into smaller
rooms.5 However, A. Wicker pointed out that “a behavior set-
ting forces its activity program on the people and objects
within that behavior setting,”6 and a space where reading seats
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Japan Architectural Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Architectural Institute of Japan.
Abstract
This study aimed to clarify the relationship between the seated area features and
floor plan compositions of open reading spaces found in 55 Japanese public
libraries completed since 2000. These elements were approached from the view-
points of floor plan forms, bookshelf area arrangement, seated areas, and seat-
ing arrangements in seated areas. As the result of the statistical analyses of 792
seated areas—based on the nature of users’ coexistence with the sociopetal,
sociofugal, and side-by-side viewpoints—eight types of seating arrangement in
seated areas and the relationship between seating arrangement types and floor
plan types were found.
Keywords
coexistence, floor plan composition, open Reading space, public library, seated
area, seating arrangement
are uniformly arranged may restrict how users spend their
time. Therefore, it is desirable to gently divide an open reading
space to create a public library that provides a variety of ways
to spend time. Therefore, this study focused on how open read-
ing spaces are divided in current public libraries and how read-
ing seats are installed in the divided areas. The author believes
that clarifying these areas’ structures will help construct a
planning theory on the gradual division of open-area reading
spaces.
1.2 Purpose of the study
This study first defined two areas in the open reading space of
a public library: the bookshelf area consisting of a group
of bookshelves and the seated areas comprised of a group of
chairs and desks. The study then focused on the seated areas
where visitors mainly stay and analyzed the following: first,
the relationship between the floor plan forms of the open read-
ing spaces and the bookshelf areas (from here on referred to as
the floor plan composition) and the seated area: second, the
typology of the seating arrangement within the seated area in
terms of its coexistence with other people [Note 1], and the
relationship between the typology and the floor plan
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023
 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KOJIMA AND KOMATSU wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

composition. In other words, by mutually analyzing the seated type, which is now the mainstream, in which bookcases stand
area and the floor plan composition, the study aimed to clarify in the center of the room; and (4) the block type, which is a
the relationship between the characteristics of the seated area development of the gallery type. However, these four classifi-
and the floor plan composition in the open reading spaces of cations were also basically derived by focusing on the arrange-
public libraries and to present suggestions for the future plan- ment of bookshelves, and the seating space is only mentioned
ning of public libraries. in size and brightness. T. Kitaoka16–19 proposed a zoning
method for the general book area from the viewpoint of book
1.3 Methodology of the study shelving. He showed the possibility of creating a popular
Pioneering examples of stay-type public libraries began to library area with book shelving and pointed out specific zoning
appear in the 1990s, and from then on, plans and designs ori- in open reading spaces by focusing on adult and family use. T.
ented toward the stay-type started to be implemented. Consid- Nakai et al.20–22 analyzed user behaviors and pointed out the
ering this history, the authors collected floor plans with importance of separating a one-room space from other spaces.
furniture layouts of 55 public libraries completed between Nakai’s studies also pointed out that user behavior, such as sit-
2000 and 2015, which were published in architectural periodi- ting in a library, may vary depending on the spatial character-
cals and library architecture journals such as the Shinkench- istics, the size of the reading room, the number and orientation
iku7, the Kindai Kenchiku8, and the Kenchiku Sekkei Shiryo9, of each seat, and the layout of bookshelves and seats in the
and analyzed their main floors [Note 2]. library, including their positional relationship with the stacks.
First, according to the typology of the floor plan forms and However, while both studies were concerned with spatial plan-
the bookshelf area arrangement in the open reading spaces on ning in open reading spaces, there were no indications of spe-
the main floors of the 55 cases, the relationship with the num- cific planning for seating spaces.
ber and size of the seated areas was analyzed. Second, all According to the review above, this study, which focuses on
seated areas in the 55 cases were categorized by the seating seated areas in open reading spaces, is highly original and sug-
arrangement type and analyzed based on their coexistence with gestive for design practice within the worldwide trend of pay-
others. Furthermore, the relationship between the typological ing more attention to libraries’ seating spaces and the
configuration of the seated areas and the floor plan composi- transformation of libraries.
tion in each case was examined.
3. Basic Information on the Cases
2. Review of Previous Studies and the Positioning of this 3.1 Overview of the cases
Study The 55 cases studied were evenly distributed in terms of the
Referring to library architecture and library spaces from time of completion (Figure 1). The locations of the 55 cases
ancient to modern times, it is undeniable that a common func- were primarily in commercial and residential zoning districts.
tional characteristic of libraries is the storage of materials. This Most cases had a total floor area of 2000–4000 m2, followed
has created a unique sense of place, though it has changed
over time10. It can be pointed out that the stacks that house
the materials and their arrangement make a unique sense of
place in a library. In the 21st century, N. Lushington, an
American library consultant, and his colleagues11,12 reviewed
American library architecture and summarized the consider-
ations in the planning and design of libraries. Their book pub-
lished in 2002 focuses on suggestions for seat forms,
materials, and ergonomics. In their 2016 book, however, they
cite recent examples of libraries and learning spaces where
multimedia has been introduced. They suggest diversifying
seating spaces and types and the roles that seating should play
today. Italian library consultant A. Agnoli13 insisted on the sig-
nificance of users finding seats suitable for themselves in a
library, referring to the proxemics theory by American ethnol-
ogist E. T. Hall14 and psychologist R. Sommer15. Agnoli’s
viewpoint is suggestive of this study because it has a human
ecological approach that pays more attention to the effective-
ness of users than the efficiency of seating spaces. In addition,
Agnoli also addressed libraries’ transformation to keep up with
the digital and multimedia age.
As for the published studies by Japanese researchers on open
reading space planning based on Japanese libraries, S.
Uematsu1 explained the elemental composition of open reading
spaces from the viewpoint of plan planning, classifying them
into four categories: (1) the gallery type, which has its origins
in the Baroque period and can be said to be the standard form
of library architecture as a hall of knowledge, in which wall
bookcases surround a central seating space; (2) the corner type,
which is a development of the gallery type but in which book-
cases project from the wall bookcases; (3) the freestanding FIGURE 1. Outline of the survey cases

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 2


wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
by those with a floor area of 2000 m2 or less. In contrast, only
two cases had a floor area of more than 10 000 m2. Regarding
open reading spaces on the main floor, 36 cases were between
1000 and 2000 m2, and a few were over 2000 m2.
3.2 Classification of the floor plan forms and bookshelf areas in
open reading spaces
Regarding the open reading spaces of the 55 cases, first, the
floor plan forms and the bookshelf area layout were classified
to give an overview of the floor plan composition. The floor
plan forms were categorized into six types (large room type,
outer edge segmentation type, void type, core type, area
arrangement type, and multi-room type) [Note 3], and the
bookshelf areas into three types (single concentrated type, plu-
ral concentrated type, and distributive type) (Figure 2) [Note
4]. Figure 7 illustrates each type of floor plan form (from here
FIGURE 2. Types of floor plan and bookshelf area arrangement
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 3
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
on, referred to as floor plan type). The characteristics of each
floor plan type are as follows. The wide-room type has book-
shelves and seated areas in an integrated space, and the book-
shelf area divides the reading space. The outer edge
segmentation type has a concave/convex on the outer edge of
the building, separating the reading space into sections. The
atrium and courtyard are located inside the building in the void
type. In the core type, the administration and other depart-
ments are located in the center of the building, and the open
reading space surrounds them. In the area arrangement type,
architectural elements such as wall columns and hanging walls
are used to form seated areas and bookshelf areas within the
open reading space. Finally, the room group type, of which
Musashino Place in Musashino City, Tokyo, is the only exam-
ple, consists of small unit spaces connected as an open reading
space.

KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
The classification showed that the most common floor plan
type was the large room type (34 cases), and the most com-
mon bookshelf area type was the single concentrated type (26
cases). In terms of combinations of the floor plan type and
bookshelf area type, the combinations of the large room type
and single concentrated type, and the large room type and plu-
ral concentrated type, were the most common at 17 and 15
cases, respectively [Note 5].
3.3 Definitions of bookshelf area and seated area, and how to
determine their boundaries
The definitions of bookshelf area and seated area and the
method for determining their boundaries are shown below.
First, the bookshelf area is defined as “an area composed of
bookshelves, including a space for users to select books and
materials.” The method for determining two areas’ boundaries
is illustrated in Figure 3. In the front direction of the book-
shelves, the area’s boundary shall be offset by 600 mm, half
of the typical aisle width3 of 1200 mm. In the side and rear
directions of the bookshelves, the position and the boundary of
the bookshelf area shall coincide. Finally, the boundary of the
wall bookshelves is determined as with the mentioned-above
other bookshelves.
Next, the seated area is defined as “the area formed by the
bookshelves and architectural elements and composed of chairs
and desks.” The seated area is determined by the following
procedure [Note 6]. First, the space where the chairs and desks
are located is identified as the seated area by checking the
floor plan composition, as shown in Step 1. Next, considering
the columns, hanging walls, etc., around the identified seated
area, it is determined whether the seated area identified in Step
1 should be further subdivided. An example of the subdivision
is shown in Step 2. This is the case when more than half of
the area facing the columns is hidden by columns, etc., or
when the space is considered divided by hanging walls, etc.
FIGURE 3. The boundary of the bookshelf area and seated areas
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
Furthermore, the boundary of the seated area is determined
by considering the chair and desk assembly form as in Step 3.
The specific method for determining the boundaries is shown
below.
1 The boundary is offset by 700 mm to the direction of the
chair in the set of desks with chairs.
2 The boundary shall be offset by 300 mm in the front direc-
tion of a person in a chair alone.
3 The boundary shall outline each piece of furniture’s area
in the group of chairs and desks.
4. Relationship between Floor Plan Composition and
Seated Area
4.1 Area distribution of seated areas
Looking at the area distribution of the 792 seated areas on the
main floors of all 55 cases, the most common size was 0–
5 m2. The number decreased as the area size increased, with
only a few seated areas larger than 75 m2 (Figure 4). The larg-
est seated area was 194.6 m2; 0–5 m2 seated areas consisted of
1 to 3 pieces of furniture, and 5–10 m2 seated areas were
found in most libraries. Seated areas of 75 m2 or larger were
found in the core type’s case where reading seats were
grouped and located on the outer edge. Kakegawa City Central
Library is one example (Figure 7). It was also confirmed in
the distributive type case, such as Gifu Media Cosmos, where
the large-sized seated area is composed of architectural
elements.
4.2 Relationship between the area of open reading spaces and
the number of seated areas
This section analyzes the relationship between the area of open
reading spaces, the number of seated areas, and the floor plan
type and examines the influences of the floor plan type.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 4

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
FIGURE 4. Histogram of seated areas size
FIGURE 5. Relationship between the floor plan and the number of seated areas
Looking at the correlation between the area of the open read-
ing space and the number of seated areas on the main floor, a
weak positive correlation coefficient of 0.567 was observed.
Still, there was some variation (Figure 5). Focusing on the
large room type case, variation was observed for the value of
the approximate line. The reason for this may be the influence
of the arrangement of the bookshelf area. It is assumed that
the number of seated areas increases if the seated area is
divided by shelves and that the number of seated areas is small
if the shelves are arranged together, such as a single concen-
trated type. These details will be analyzed in the next section.
In contrast, focusing on the outer edge segmentation type, such
as the Aisho Town Aichikawa Library in Figure 7, its floor
plan type creates multiple seated areas. In most cases of this
type, the number of seated areas was larger than the value of
the approximate straight line.
4.3 Relationship between the area of the bookshelf area type
and the open reading space
The average area of open reading spaces on the main floor of
each of the three bookshelf area types was 1229.5 m2 for the
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 5
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
single concentrated type, which was smaller than that of the
plural concentrated type and the distributive type, with most
cases ranging from 1000 to 1500 m2 (Figure 6 (1)). The results
of the t-test confirmed a significant difference (p < 0.05)
between the single-concentrated and plural-concentrated types
[Note 7]. The maximum size among the cases was less than
1800 m2, and there was less variation in the size of the cases
compared with those of the plural concentrated and distributive
types. In contrast, the plural concentrated type’s case had a
mean value of 1558.4 m2, and the dispersion showed that
many cases were between 1000 and 2000 m2, indicating a
wide variation. The average value of the distributive type’s
cases was 2606.4 m2, but many were around 2000 m2.
4.4 Relationship between the type of bookshelf area and the
number of seated areas
The mean value of the single concentrated, multiple concen-
trated, and dispersed stack area types was 12.2, 14.7, and 23.8,
respectively. There was a significant trend (p < 0.1) between
the single concentrated and other types (Figure 6 (2)). As clari-
fied in 4-3, the area of the open reading space tends to

KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
FIGURE 6. Relationship between bookshelf area arrangement and size of open reading spaces or seated area
increase as the number of book stack areas becomes multiplied
and distributed, and similar to this trend, the number of seated
areas tends to be smaller in the single concentrated cases. In
contrast, the number of areas tends to be more prominent in
the plural concentrated and distributive types’ cases. Focusing
on the distributive type’s cases, as shown in Figure 6 (1), the
average area of open reading spaces had a higher maximum
value. Still, the number of seated areas was closer to the
median value.
4.5 Ratio of the total area of the seated area and bookshelf area
for each bookshelf area type
Regarding the ratio of the total area of the seated area, the
average value for the single concentrated type was 15.4%,
17.6% for the plural concentrated type, and 17.4% for the dis-
tributive type. T-tests showed no significant difference, and
there was little difference depending on the arrangement of the
bookshelf area (Figure 6 (3)). In contrast, looking at the ratio
of the total area of the stacks to the open reading space, the
single concentrated type had 35%–40% of the total area, the
plural concentrated type had 30%–35%, and the distributive
type had less than 30% (Figure 6 (4)). Since a significant dif-
ference (p < 0.05) was confirmed between the distributive type
and each arrangement method, it can be said that the more dis-
persed the bookshelf area is, the more the percentage of the
bookshelf area decreases.
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
One possible reason for the difference is the form of the cir-
culation space within the open reading space. In the single
concentrated type, the bookshelves are arranged in a single
area, so the circulation space has a relatively simple form and
is small in area. This is thought to have resulted in the rela-
tively high ratio of the bookshelf area. In contrast, in the dis-
tributive type, the form of the circulation is more complex,
and the area is more significant than in the single concentrated
type. Thus, the bookshelf area’s area ratio is considered rela-
tively low.
4.6 Relationship between the floor plan type, the bookshelf area
type, and the seated area
A bubble chart was created based on three factors: the size of
the seated area in each case, the number of pieces of furniture
within the seated area [Note 8], and the number of types of
seating furniture within the seated area (from now on referred
to as the number of seating types) [Note 9] (Figure 7). Based
on this chart, we determined the size of each seated area and
the degree of dispersion of the total number of each floor plan
type for each bookshelf area type and analyzed whether the
floor plan form or bookshelf area was the more decisive factor
in the formation of the seated area.
In the single concentrated cases of the large room type and
the core type, there were many cases in which a large amount
of furniture was placed in the seated areas located on the outer
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 6

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
FIGURE 7. Relationship between floor plan, bookshelf area arrangement, size of the seated area, and number of furniture in the seated area
edges, forming large and small areas simultaneously. As a
result, it created a difference in the size of the area in each
case. In contrast, in the plural concentrated type and distribu-
tive type in the large room type and core type, small and
medium-sized seated areas were formed, and the difference in
area size tended to be small. This suggests that the bookshelf
area influences the formation of the seated area more signifi-
cantly in the large room type and core type.
In the case of the outer edge segmentation type, small-sized
seated areas were formed in a space with a concave/convex at
the outer edge of the building. There was not much difference
in the size or the total number of seated areas in each book-
shelf area type. Therefore, the influence of the floor plan form
on the formation of the seated area is considered to be signifi-
cant. In the void type, seating furniture was arranged on the
outer edge of buildings and the periphery of voids. The num-
ber and size of the seated areas varied depending on the num-
ber and size of the voids. In the multi-room type, the unit
space defined the seated area, and there was no difference in
the size of the area. In the void and multi-room types, there
was little difference in the arrangement of the book stack area.
Therefore, as with the outer edge segmentation type, the influ-
ence of the floor plan form is considered to be relatively large
in the formation of the seated area.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 7
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
In the two cases of the area arrangement type, some seated
areas were formed by architectural elements that were not limited
to the external form of the floor plan, such as the wall columns in
the Shiojiri City Library and the umbrella-shaped ceilings called
“groves” in the Gifu Media Cosmos, though the others were
formed according to the arrangement of the bookshelf area.
Furthermore, regarding the size of the bubble, which means
the number of types of seating furniture, the size of the bubble
varied even in seated areas of the same size. Therefore, it was
inferred that there may be a relationship between the floor plan
type, the seated area size, and the spatial characteristics within
the seated area. However, since this could not be clarified from
the perspective of Figure 7 and the previous analyses, we con-
ducted an analysis focusing on the seating arrangement within
the seated area, which is outlined in the following section.
5. Characteristics of the Seating Arrangement
Configuration in the Seated Area from the Viewpoint of
Coexistence with Others and its Relationship with the
Floor Plan Composition
In this section, focusing on the seating arrangement in the
seated area, the characteristics of the seating arrangement con-
figuration in the seated area are explored, especially

KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
FIGURE 8. Basic classification of seating arrangement
considering coexistence with others. In addition, the relation-
ships between its features and floor plan composition are
examined.
5.1 Primary classification of seating arrangements
The seating arrangement of furniture installed in public librar-
ies is organized using the classification of seating arrange-
ment23 proposed by H. Osmond (Figure 8). In this study,
furniture for personal use where one does not sit with others
was classified as personal. In contrast, seats where one can sit
with others was classified as side by side, sociopetal, or socio-
fugal in terms of the seating arrangement.
5.2 Furniture forms for each seating capacity and subdivision of
seating arrangement classification
Figure 9 shows each furniture form by sociopetal and sociofu-
gal seating capacity [Note 10] extracted from the 55 cases. In
terms of furniture forms, sociopetal furniture is for an even
number of people (six or more). In contrast, sociofugal furni-
ture is relatively diverse and for a small number of people.
Regarding the distribution of the number of furniture instal-
lations for each seating capacity extracted from the 55 cases,
in the sociopetal seating arrangement, most of the furniture
was for four people (422). In contrast, there were differences
between furniture for even and odd numbers of people. How-
ever, the amount of furniture for five or more people was gen-
erally smaller (Figure 10). In the sociofugal seating
arrangement, there was some variation between furniture for
odd-numbered people and furniture for even-numbered people.
Still, there was not as much of a difference in the number of
installations as in the sociopetal case. Therefore, a sociopetal
seating arrangement gives one a strong sense of being together
with others. But, on the contrary, the sociofugal case is more
private. In addition, considering the results of the above analy-
sis on the diversity of furniture forms and the amount of
arranged furniture, furniture for two to four people was subdi-
vided into small-scale sociopetal, and furniture for five or more
people was subdivided into large-scale sociopetal. However,
sociofugal was not subdivided.
5.3 Extraction of classification axes of seated areas
Using the 5 seating arrangement types subdivided in 5-2, a
principal component analysis [Note 11] was conducted with
the total number of seats in each classification as variables
within the 792 seated areas in all 55 cases. As a result, five
principal components were extracted. Among them, principal
components 1 to 3 (with a cumulative contribution rate of
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
66.51%) with eigenvalues of 1 or more were adopted, as they
were regarded as having more information than each seating
arrangement category used as a variable.
First, the interpretation of principal components 1–3 is
shown below (Figure 11).
1 Principal Component 1: Seat Independence
Only the personal type showed a value on the positive side.
On the contrary, small-scale sociopetal, such as four-seat read-
ing rooms where the seats face each other and there is a strong
sense of cohabitation, showed high values on the minus side.
From the above, principal component 1 can be interpreted as
indicating seat independence.
2 Principal Component 2: Seating Orientation Tolerance
Seating arrangements that did not restrict seating direction
as much as other seating arrangements showed positive values.
On the contrary, the values were negative for side-by-side and
small-scale sociopetal seating arrangements, which are more
restricted in seating direction. From the above, principal com-
ponent 2 can be interpreted as the tolerance of seating direc-
tion. The tolerance of seating direction can also be
paraphrased as the degree of freedom of the user’s seating
direction in a piece of furniture. Specifically, in a sociofugal
seating arrangement, the user can choose their seating direction
to some extent while considering the seating directions of
others. Therefore, the tolerance of seating direction, in this
case, is considered to be relatively high. In contrast, users face
the same direction in a side-by-side seating arrangement, so
the seating direction tolerance is deemed to be relatively low.
3 Principal Component 3: Seating Selectivity in Coexistence
with Others
Seating arrangements with homogeneous seating such as
large sociopetal and side by side showed values on the positive
side. Conversely, seating arrangements in which the presence
of others is considered to influence seat selection, such as
small-scale sociopetal and sociofugal, showed strong values on
the negative side. From the above, principal component 3 can
be interpreted as representing seating selectivity in coexistence
with others. Seating selectivity in coexistence with others can
also be interpreted as the ease of seat selection in the current
and prospective presence of sitting people. Specifically, seating
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 8

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
FIGURE 9. Furniture shapes for each seating capacity
FIGURE 10. Distribution of the number of samples for each seating arrangement
selectivity is considered high in the case of side-by-side seat-
ing consisting of homogeneous seating. In contrast, in a seat-
ing arrangement where the presence of others is thought to
have a significant impact on seat selection, such as in the
small-scale sociopetal case, seat selectivity is deemed low.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 9
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
5.4 Typology of seated areas
A nonhierarchical cluster analysis (see Note [11]) was con-
ducted using the three principal component scores for each
seated area, resulting in eight area clusters (from now on
referred to as Area CL) [Note 12]. A scatter plot of each

KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
FIGURE 11. Result of principal component analysis
principal component combination using the three principal
component scores for each seated area is shown in Figure 12.
The distribution of each Area CL was analyzed (Figure 12
(1), (2), and (3)). Area CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CL6, and CL7
can be characterized by the implications of principal compo-
nent 2, “tolerance of seating direction,” and principal compo-
nent 3, “selectivity of seating in coexistence with others.” The
distribution of Area CL5 in Figure 12 (1) and (2) shows the
characteristics of principal component 1, “seat independence.”
Furthermore, looking at the distribution of Area CL8 in Fig-
ure 12 (1) and (3), the value of principal component 2, which
represents “seating orientation tolerance,” is relatively low,
and the principal component score itself is low for this seated
area.
Regarding the examples of seated areas in each Area CL,
seated areas such as Area CL1, CL4, and CL5 were often
composed of furniture of the same seating arrangement type
and form. In contrast, area CL3 was comprised of furniture of
multiple seating arrangement types. As a result, Area CL3 had
a high value of principal component 2, while the values of
principal component 3 were varied.
5.5 Size of seated area for each area cluster
Regarding the size of the seated area for each Area CL, areas
CL1 to CL4 had a larger area than Areas CL5 to CL8. A sig-
nificant difference (p < 0.05) was confirmed (Figure 13). That
contrast was also consistent with the number of each Area CL,
with 704 (88.9%) of the total 792 Area CLs falling into Areas
CL5 through 8. In other words, the majority of the seated areas
in the 55 cases analyzed were generally 20 m2 or smaller,
according to Figure 13. Comparing the area sizes of Area CL5
to CL8, the average values of Area CL6 and CL7 were both
18.3 m2. The mean values for CL5, which had a high degree
of seated area independence, and CL8, which had a low princi-
pal component score, were relatively small, at 10.3 and
11.0 m2, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were
observed between Area CL6 and CL7 and Area CL5 and CL8.
On the contrary, among Area CL1 through CL4, Area CL3
had the highest mean value of 88.8 m2, followed by Area CL2
with 63.5 m2. Besides the smaller number of cases in Area
CL3, the following reasons may be considered: it included
cases of a seated area formed by furniture of various seating
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
arrangement types and ones with a relatively large area around
the seats comprised of only furniture with high seating direc-
tion tolerance.
5.6 Characteristics of each area cluster
Based on the implications of the three principal components,
the area size, and the seated area arrangement within the area,
the characteristics of each area CL are as follows.
1 Area CL1 was mainly composed of furniture that was clas-
sified as side by side. Since the seating direction tolerance
was low and users did not face each other, the selectivity
of seating was relatively high. However, the sense of coex-
istence with others was relatively weak, and users’ privacy
was considered to be maintained.
2 Area CL2 consisted mainly of furniture classified as large-
scale sociopetal and was a seated area with a high degree
of tolerance for seating orientation. In addition, the number
of people who coexisted in the seated area was more sig-
nificant than in other Area CLs. Therefore, it was possible
for users to face each other in various seating directions
and coexist with each other while being aware of other
users’ activities.
3 Area CL3 was composed of furniture that was classified as
large-scale sociopetal or sociofugal. It was a seated area
with a higher tolerance for seating orientation than the
other area CLs because of the coexistence of facing and
conflicting seating orientations within the area.
4 Because Area CL4 consisted of furniture that was classi-
fied as small-scale sociopetal, such as two- and four-seat
reading seats, the sense of co-location in one piece of fur-
niture was considered strong. However, the seating orienta-
tion tolerance was low due to the large number of seats
facing each other. In addition, the furniture arrangement in
the seated area was also uniform, so the selectivity of seat-
ing was low. Therefore, the number of people coexisting
in a seated area may have been small relative to the num-
ber of seats.
5 Area CL5 consisted of furniture classified as personal, such
as carrel seats. Therefore, it was considered a seated area
with a high degree of seating independence and a weak
sense of co-presence with others.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 10

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
FIGURE 12. Result of cluster analysis and example of seated areas
6 Area CL6, like Area CL2, consisted mainly of furniture
classified as large-scale sociopetal. However, compared
with Area CL2, the area scale was smaller, and the number
of people who could coexist simultaneously was smaller.
In other words, the seated area of Area CL6 had a lower
tolerance for seating orientation than Area CL2.
7 Area CL7 was a seated area consisting mainly of furniture
classified as sociofugal. Since the seating was in opposing
directions, it was considered a seated area with a high tol-
erance for seating direction, and people could coexist in a
private setting.
8 Area CL8 was composed of furniture that was classified as
small-scale sociopetal or side by side. The number of seats
in the seated area was also smaller than in other Areas
CLs; therefore, it was a seated area with a lower tolerance
for seating orientation.
5.7 The interrelationship between the area clusters, the floor
plan types, and the bookshelf area types
Finally, the interrelationships between the eight Area CLs, the
floor plan types, and the bookshelf area types analyzed in
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 11
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
Sections 3 and 4 were analyzed according to Figure 14, which
shows the number of seated areas and the number of Area CL
types in the 55 cases. Figure 14 (3) shows the ratio of the
number of seated areas in each Area CL, arranged based on
the area of the target open reading space (Figure 14 (1)) for
each combination of floor plan type and bookshelf area type
for all of the cases.
Regarding the large room type and the outer edge segmenta-
tion type with a large number of cases, there was a correlation
between the area of open reading space (Figure 14 (1)) and the
number of Area CL types (Figure 14 (2)) for each case;
r = 0.56 for the large room type, r = 0.83 for the outer edge
segmentation type, and r = 0.66 for all 55 cases. For example,
the Yachiyo Municipal Library and Iwaki Municipal Library of
the large room type had six Area CLs. Still, the area of open
reading space was also relatively large, at 1978 and 2435 m2,
respectively.
Regarding the composition of CLs in the large room type
and the outer edge segmentation type cases, more than half of
them were in CL5 to CL8 (see the thick dotted line in Fig-
ure 14 (3)), as was the trend in all 55 cases. Among them,

KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
FIGURE 13. Relationship between area cluster and size of seated areas
FIGURE 14. Cross analyses between floor plan types, bookshelf area arrangement types, open reading space areas, and area clusters
Area CL5, which was highly independent, and Area CL8,
which had a fixed seating direction, were the most central.
Therefore, the authors paid attention to this trend for the large
room and outer edge segmentation types, which had the most
significant number of cases. For example, Area CL5 to 8
accounted for 90% of the total number of cases in 17 of 34
cases for the large room type of the most common floor plan
type, while 10 of 13 cases for the outer edge segmentation
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
type. In addition, regarding the large room type and the outer
edge segmentation type above, in which small seated areas
occupied more than 90%, 9 of the 17 cases in the large room
type and 7 of the 10 cases in the outer edge segmentation type
contained all small seated areas of Areas CL5 to 8. The results
showed that along with the small size of the seated areas, the
outer edge segmentation type had small and variously charac-
terized seated areas at the spatially segmented outer edges, etc.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 12

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
In other words, a relationship was found between the seated
areas and the floor plan form of the segmented open reading
space.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Relationship between floor plan composition and seated
areas in open reading spaces
The floor plan composition of open reading spaces in public
libraries was classified into six-floor plan types and three book-
shelf area types, and the relationship between them and the
seated area was analyzed.
The mean percentage of the total area of the seated area in
each of the three types of stack ranged from 15.6% to 17.6%,
and no significant differences were found. However, there was
a considerable difference between the single concentrated type
and the other types regarding the number of seated areas.
In addition, a comparison of the area ratio of each type of
bookshelf area showed that it tended to decrease as the number
of them became multiplied or more decentralized.
In other words, the more complicated the arrangement of the
bookshelf areas, the more the area ratio of the bookshelf areas
in the open reading space tended to decrease. At the same
time, the open reading space was divided by the bookshelf
areas, and seated areas were formed in the split space. As a
result, the number of seated areas tended to increase.
Therefore, when the area ratio of a bookshelf area to an
open reading space is small, it is considered that the bookshelf
areas can be used to divide up the seated area. On the con-
trary, when the bookshelf area occupies a large proportion of
the open reading space, the seated area is considered to be
divided by architectural elements.
The analysis of the effects of the floor plan type and the
bookshelf area type on the formation of the seated area
showed that the large room type and the core type were signif-
icantly affected by the arrangement of the bookshelf areas.
The outer edge segmentation type, the void type, and the
multi-room type were significantly affected by the floor plan
forms. In addition, both influences were observed in the area
arrangement type.
6.2 Relationship between the seating arrangement configuration
of seated areas and the floor plan configuration of open reading
spaces
Next, as a result of analyzing the seating arrangement within
the seated areas, all 792 seated areas could be classified into 8
Area CLs according to the 3 axes of “seat independence,” “tol-
erance of seating direction,” and “seating selectivity in coexis-
tence with others.” In addition, seated areas where users could
coexist with others while being aware of other users’ activities
and seated areas where users could coexist with others while
maintaining their privacy were identified. In other words, it
became clear that from 2000 to 2015, when the concept of
stay-type libraries was shared and examples of such libraries
emerged in various regions, some of the seating space plans
were also implemented under the stay-type concept.
Furthermore, it was found that there was a positive relation-
ship between the seated area, the variety of seating arrange-
ment, and the area of open reading space in the large room
type and the outer edge segmentation type, which had the most
significant number of examples. In particular, the outer edge
segmentation type tended to have smaller seated areas on the
outer edges of the open reading space, and the characteristics
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 13
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
of their seating arrangements were also diverse. Thus, although
this study was limited to one-floor plan type, the relationship
between the floor plan form, seated area, and seating arrange-
ments was confirmed.
6.3 Results of this study and future issues
From the perspective of visitors’ stay and coexistence, open
reading spaces’ seated areas and floor plan compositions were
mutually analyzed and discussed. Conventionally, designs for
seating units have been examined in terms of how they ensure
that many users can sit efficiently according to their purposes
and be comfortable through the use of forms, dimensions,
materials, etc. However, this study extracted five seating
arrangement types of personal, side by side, small-scale socio-
petal, large-scale sociopetal, and their combinations (eight
seated area types). They can serve as a reference type for plan-
ning considerations.
Although the findings were limited due to the limited num-
ber of cases analyzed, the authors could confirm a relationship
between the seated area and floor plan composition of open
reading spaces. Therefore, in planning open reading spaces
from the viewpoint of users’ stay, the authors would like to
point out the need to consider the planning of seating spaces,
including the small size and dispersion of the seated area and
the seating arrangement. Also, it is essential to consider this
together with the total floor plan of open reading spaces, not
separately or subordinately.
This study focused on seated areas in public libraries and
quantitatively analyzed the relationship between floor plan
composition and types of seated area. However, since we did
not confirm whether or not the subject case was planned and
operated on the premise of stay-type, there remains room for
further study on the consistency of the planning and operation
policies. In addition, it was impossible to clarify the relation-
ship with the actual conditions in public libraries, such as what
kind of seated areas users feel like staying in and how they
use them. Furthermore, although this study could not deal with
this issue, seating spaces integrated with architecture have
appeared in recent years. Therefore, we would like to clarify
the more detailed methods of area configuration through a
cross-sectional analysis of the quantitative research conducted
in this study and the latest actual conditions in public libraries,
which are becoming increasingly multifunctional.
Disclosures
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Notes
Note 1) In this study, “coexistence” refers to the state where users are
in the same space. The “coexistence situation” refers to how users stay
in the same space; for example, the direction of their bodies defined by
the seating arrangement.
Note 2) The main floor in this study refers to the floor with the largest
area of open reading space where the popular library is located.
Note 3) In terms of the arrangement of reading seats, the void type
and the core type are treated as different floor plan types since the void
type allows reading seats to be arranged around the void, while the
core type has many cases in which reading seats are placed around the
outer edge of the void.

KOJIMA AND KOMATSU
Note 4) Composite floor plan forms were generally assumed when
classifying the plan forms of the 55 cases. However, in this study,
there were no complex floor plan forms that could not be classified, so
we classified them according to the primary floor plan forms of the
subject cases.
Note 5) Although the large room type accounted for a relatively large
number of cases (34), all 55 cases were used in the subsequent analysis
since this was the result of the current situation and the comparison
with other types was essential.
Note 6) This study did not include places with tatami mat floors or
where people might be seated due to actual use, even though they were
not recognizable on the drawings.
Note 7) From here on, the t-test was used to test for significant
differences.
Note 8) “Amount of furniture” refers to the number of desks. If there
were no desks but only chairs or sofas, they were counted as a single
piece of furniture.
Note 9) “Number of types of seating furniture constituting a seated
area” was determined by the number of people who could be seated in
the seated area and the form of the desks (if there were no desks but
only chairs, sofas, etc., the form of the desks was used).
Note 10) For chairs, sofas, etc., for which seating per person was not
indicated, the length of the seating portion was divided by the dimen-
sions of the seat per person (700 mm), and the value was rounded
down to the nearest whole number to be used as the number of people
who could be seated.
Note 11) Mac Statistical Analysis Series (Esumi) was used.
Note 12) As a result of examining the number of clusters in the non-
hierarchical cluster analysis by specifying multiple clusters, eight clus-
ters, considered to reflect each cluster’s characteristics best, were
adopted.
References
1 Uematsu S. Toshokan Shisetsu Ron. Jusonbo Co. Ltd.; 2014. (in Japanese).
2 Nishikawa K. History of Library Architecture Development. Maruzen Planet;
2010. (in Japanese).
3 Masuko K. Design of Library Space. Maruzen; 2018. (in Japanese).
4 Furuta D, Kojima Y, Komatsu H. Tendency of spaces and operation in Japa-
nese public libraries from the viewpoint of citizens’ multipurpose uses. J
Archi Plann. 2019;759:1057-1065. (in Japanese).
5 Architectural Institute of Japan. Compact Architecture Design Data Collec-
tion. 3rd ed. Maruzen; 2005. (in Japanese).
6 Wicker AW. An Introduction to Ecological Psychology. Kyushu University
Press; 1994. (in Japanese).
7 Shinkenchiku-sha. Shin-Kenchiku. Shinkenchiku-sha Co. Ltd.; 2001.1–
2016.12. (in Japanese).
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12346 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [04/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
8 Kindaikenchiku-sha. Kindai Kenchiku. Kindaikenchiku-sha Co. Ltd.; 2000.1–
2016.12. (in Japanese).
9 Kenchiku Shicho Kenkyujo. Data File of Architectural Design & Detail 97
Library 3. Kenchiku Shicho Kenkyusha; 2004. (in Japanese).
10 Katsura E. INAX ALBUM 22 Iconography of Library Architecture. INAX;
1994. (in Japanese).
11 Lushington N et al. Libraries Designed for Users—A 21st Century Guide.
Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.; 2002.
12 Lushington N et al. Libraries—A Design Manual Perfect. Birkhauser, Archi-
tecture; 2016.
13 Agnoli A. Le piazze del sapere—Biblioteche e libert a. Gius. Laterza & Figli;
2009. (in Italian).
14 Hall ET. The hidden dimension. Doubleday & Company, Inc.; 1966.
15 Sommer R. Personal Space the Behavioral Basis of Design. Prentice-Hall,
Inc.; 1969.
16 Kitaoka T. A possibility of planning a popular library area: studies of the
method of zoning an open shelf floor at public libraries (1). J Archi Plann.
2008;626:751-756. (in Japanese).
17 Kitaoka T. The formation of popular library areas and a proposal of it’s col-
lections: studies of the method of zoning an open shelf floor at public librar-
ies (2). J Archi Plann. 2009;638:751-760. (in Japanese).
18 Kitaoka T. The characteristics of the adult’s uses at the public libraries with
an active zone: studies of the method of zoning an open shelf floor at public
libraries (3). J Archi Plann. 2010;652:1365-1371. (in Japanese).
19 Kitaoka T. The characteristics of family use at a public library with an
active zone: studies of the method of zoning an open shelf floor at public
libraries (4). J Archi Plann. 2011;667:1545-1552. (in Japanese).
20 Nakai T, Omae Y, Imai S. Users’ Activities and Favorite Place to Stay in
Public Libraries. A Study on Planning of Library based on Users’ Activities
Part 1. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural
Institute of Japan, Architectural Planning and Design 2001:395–396. (in
Japanese).
21 Omae Y, Nakai T, Imai S. Factor Analysis to Users’ Behavior Making
Selection from Places to Stay in Public Libraries. A Study on Planning of
Library based on Users’ Activities Part 2. Summaries of Technical Papers of
Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Planning
and Design 2001:397–398. (in Japanese).
22 Nakai T, Akino T, Taniguchi M. Activities and behaviors to select seats
based on Users’ generation and affiliation in libraries: a study on the plan-
ning and Design of the Public Library as a “place” part 1. J Archi Plann.
2017;741:2767-2777. (in Japanese).
23 Osmond H. Function as the basis of psychiatric ward design. Ment Hosp.
1957;23:23-27.
How to cite this article: Kojima Y, Komatsu H. Study
on the relationship between the seated area features and
floor plan compositions of open reading spaces in public
libraries in Japan. Jpn Archit Rev. 2023;6:e12346.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-8876.12346
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 14