Survey of Academic Library Facilities Management: Space Use Plans, providing a comprehensive, data-driven look at how academic libraries are allocating space, managing user demand, and planning for future change. Based on survey responses from a wide range of U.S. academic institutions, the report benchmarks seating capacity, study room provision, space conflicts, print-to-user space conversions, and long-range planning practices. The study is organized around detailed tables and breakouts by enrollment size, Carnegie classification, building age, footprint, tuition level, and public/private status. It is designed to help library administrators, campus planners, and facilities managers compare their own conditions to peer institutions and identify emerging trends in space use. Five key findings from the survey include: Public seating capacity varies dramatically by institution type. Across the entire sample, libraries report an average of 394 public user seats (median 274), but research universities average 1,065 seats, compared with just 60 seats at community colleges, underscoring major scale differences by Carnegie class.

Group study rooms are far more common than single-person rooms. Libraries report a mean of 10.0 group study rooms versus 4.7 enclosed single-person rooms, reflecting sustained demand for collaborative space alongside individual study. Noise and conflict are widespread concerns. Nearly 49% of libraries report that group rooms are a source of conflict or noise spillover at least "sometimes," with libraries occupying less than half a building reporting the highest rates of frequent conflict. Print stacks are being reduced to make room for users. A majority (53.

3%) of libraries report reducing print stack space in the past three years to expand user space, with research universities and large-enrollment institutions most likely to report major reductions. Formal space planning remains a major gap. Almost 45% of libraries report having no current space plan, while only 15.6% have a plan updated within the past two years, highlighting a disconnect between rapid space change and long-term planning.