Urban rail-transit reading facilities represent a novel extension of public library services, leveraging rail-transit users’ fragmented time to deliver reader-centric experiences beyond traditional library environments. This study investigates how these nontraditional, transit-embedded reading spaces can be optimized through a user-experience lens, with a focus on Zhejiang Province, China. Using a mixed-methods design that combines a structured questionnaire survey ( N = 472) with longitudinal circulation data from Taizhou’s Hehe e-Library (August 2023–October 2025), the research analyzes user needs, preferences, and satisfaction. The study reveals a notable user preference for lightweight embedded reading facilities (41.74 percent) and unattended libraries with seating (39.41 percent), the dominance of print books (62.08 percent), and over 90 percent demand for periodicals, with higher digital acceptance among high-frequency rail-transit users. Seamless borrowing and returning functions emerged as core service expectations, highlighting the need for streamlined and technologically integrated systems to overcome cross-regional and multizone barriers. Drawing on these insights, I propose a multifaceted optimization framework: (1) lightweight embedded reading facilities with multistation deployment, (2) integrated print-digital resource provision, (3) refined core service chains, and (4) enhanced promotional efforts to boost visibility and engagement. By bridging the physical-virtual divide and extending readers’ advisory beyond traditional library spaces, these facilities redefine how public libraries serve leisure readers in nonconventional settings. This research contributes to the evolving discourse on readers’ advisory by offering empirically grounded strategies for enhancing patron experience and promoting equitable access to reading resources in urban transit contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang Junfei (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: