I’m not aware of any costings which have actually been done, but my gut feeling is that the balance digital vs. paper comes out in favour of digital. (By “paper” I’m including parchment, photographs etc too.)
1. The biggest single ongoing cost in any repository is staffing. A paper-based archives service has to run searchrooms for users to consult the materials, where users are supervised and security is ensured. So, paper-based repositories have to employ receptionists, searchroom assistants, relief staff to cover when other staff are away etc. A digital repository which makes its assets available over the web does not incur any of these costs.
2. The next biggest direct cost is the building itself. Repositories which meet BS5454 or other relevant standards for paper preservation are not cheap things to build or run: they require space for literally miles of shelving, environmental conditions within fine tolerances, constant monitoring, security systems, controlled searchrooms and so on. Then in addition, they need machine rooms for their large ICT kit as well, like their servers. But a digital repository is just one big machine room, really.
3. There is a disparity between future growth costs. Electonic storage becomes more efficient all the time: costs of storage come down. The costs of paper storage, on the other hand, go up as more paper documents are added. (Where I work we are planning to build two entirely new repositories just to cope with all the paper which we receive, at a cost of millions! Whereas even enormous servers only cost tens of thousands.)
4. There is a disparity between location costs. Because paper repositories depend on users visiting them to consult the documents, they tend to be built where transport links are good, which in turns means that they are usually built in cities or major towns. Paper-based repositories therefore exist in areas of high land values, high business rates etc. A digital repository which makes its assets available over the web can minimise these costs by siting itself in an industrial unit pretty much anywhere.
5. There is perhaps an indirect cost to society as a whole. Paper repositories expect searchers to visit them. These searchers have to take the train, drive or fly to the repository, creating a transport and environmental cost. They have to visit the repository when it is open, which means taking time off work, creating a minor hit on the overall economy. These societal costs are minimised by digital repositories.
So, where does the perception come from that digital preservation is actually very expensive? Perhaps:
-
digital preservation may involve complicated software technical work, ie. it involves techies, and employing techies is seen as expensive (whereas employing professional archivists isn’t)
but more probably it’s perhaps
-
the repositories undertaking digital preservation are already running paper preservation. So, digital preservation is an additional cost on top of the paper preservation costs already in place, and therefore it is seen as expensive. A paper repository may cost (say) £500,000 a year to run, but because it has always cost that, the finance people accept it, and can budget for it. The digital preservation function may only be £100,000 a year to run but because it is new, and on top of the paper cost, the finance people get sweaty and worried.
Anyway these are just my thoughts! Let’s see what happens in reality when the cost comparisons are actually done.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 19, 2009 at 11:15 pm
socialcritic
I feel that libraries are ultimately more “green” than bookstores or ereaders such as Kindle for the simple fact that few resources are shared by many, whereas in the bookstore form, one book, to be read presumably one time, is purchased by one individual after which it is left to gather dust on a shelf. Likewise, in the electronic form we need one terminal or ebook reader per person, not to mention the enormous “carbon footprint” of the growing data center requirements as millions, now billions of us, plug in and login to the Internet. As much as the Internet is a shared destination point, it is not at all the ecological equivalent of sharing books in a library. When everyone in cyberspace accesses everything simultaneously, the energy and data center requirements grow exponentially, whereas the carbon footprint of a book ceases the minute it leaves the presses. Computers, like books, must be housed and maintained, but their demands for electricity and cool, controlled environmental temperatures never cease. A book is lower maintenance and contains fewer toxins, therefore a book, in the long run, should be presumed greener.
Let us not forget that the process of manufacturing microchips and integrated circuits is not at all Green and requires more water, chemicals and environmental hazards than even paper. Old growth timber and endangered rainforests excepted, trees are a fully renewable, recyclable resource that can be cultivated and harvested much like a food crop. Yet we have people putting newspapers and magazines out of business, thinking they are doing the planet a favor by logging on for “free” electronic content. Do we expect all of those who have grown up without a subscription of any kind, or who have become so accustomed to free media access on the Internet to pay for their online counterparts to stay in business? This is the future. More and more news providers, as a way to keep their staff members fed, are going to a pay-per-access model. I’m not convinced we can count on the lurkers to jump on board.
It is likely that paper will never entirely be supplanted by the digital world just as photography has not replaced the fine arts (paintings). Rather, we as a civilization continually layer on more inventions, technologies and systems over a framework that was believed to be deficient in some way, for which thus-and-such is the magic bullet. Meanwhile, the idea of ever-expanding markets require that we continually market new products as “must haves”. The result of this increasingly conspicuous consumerism is that just when the world population is reaching grand new heights, our natural resource drain is unparalleled, the harm we are inflicting on this planet, unequalled. Ours is an unsustainable path, and that’s putting it mildly.
There is an old maxim that the pioneering spirit of America captured quite effectively, which encapsulates what living Green really looks like. It is a phrase we associate with being frugal, but its implications are far greater: “Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.” To live on less, to embrace a simpler lifestyle devoid of constant upgrades and needless “lifestyle purchases” is easier said than done, however. Technology continues to offer up trendy gadgets and essential “solutions”, all of which come with consequences of their own. One might liken the onward march of progress to what medical professionals refer to as “prescription cascading”, except in this instance the effects of one technology are countered by another, and yet another, to the eventual mind-numbing, sensibility dulling harm of those who accept them. Antibiotic resistance in response to the overuse of antibiotics, at the microbial level, is yet another instance of this unsustainable “upping of the ante”, for which an economic and public health backlash seems inevitable.
Perhaps some day we will discover that there’s really no way to reinvent the wheel, only to travel in another direction while distracted on the journey toward the point from which we began. The landscape along the way may change with each passing decade, but the bottom line is tantamount to a universal law. The escalating costs, time and resources of our technology carries with it ecological, personal and societal consequences. It is time we scrutinize our choices more closely.
December 9, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Bert Verbeemen
Hi Alan,
I realize it’s an older post, but I’m doing some preliminary research on the costs of keeping a paper archive versus keeping a digital archiv and I was wondering whether you could help with additional links, references, etc.
Thanks in advance,