Case Studies - grgcnnr/LoT GitHub Wiki

This page documents similar lending library and tool share programmes operating in New Zealand and internationally. It serves two purposes: giving the steering group research to draw on when making decisions, and demonstrating to funders that this model is proven and replicable.

Note: This page will be expanded as more research is gathered. Contributions welcome.

New Zealand

Auckland Library of Tools

Location: Auckland, NZ Website: aucklandlibraryoftools.com

Org structure: Incorporated Society with charitable status. Volunteer-run with community membership model.

How it works for users: Members pay an annual membership fee to access the tool library. Items can be browsed online and reserved for pickup. Members collect and return items during opening hours. A bond/deposit may apply for higher-value items.

What they offer: Power tools, hand tools, gardening equipment, and specialist DIY items.

Notable: One of the longest-running tool libraries in New Zealand — a useful reference point for what's sustainable in a NZ context.

Hamilton City Libraries — Library of Things (He Kohikohinga Taonga Collection)

Location: Hamilton, NZ Website: hamiltonlibraries.co.nz

Org structure: Operated by Hamilton City Libraries (a council service) — not an independent community organisation.

How it works for users: Items are borrowed using a standard library card — no separate membership needed. Loan periods and limits are set by the library. The collection is integrated with the existing library catalogue and booking system.

What they offer: A broad range of items including tools, camping gear, games, and household items.

Notable: The council-operated model is very different from a community-run LoT but demonstrates strong public interest in the concept. The "He Kohikohinga Taonga" (treasure collection) framing is worth noting for its community resonance.

Relevance to Nelson: The Nelson City Council is currently planning a new library/civic centre hub — there may be an opportunity to explore a similar partnership model, while also pursuing an independent community LoT.

United Kingdom

London Library of Things

Location: London, UK (multiple locations) Website: libraryofthings.co.uk

Org structure: Social enterprise / community interest company. Has received grant funding and operates multiple locations, often co-located with existing community spaces (libraries, community centres).

How it works for users: Members sign up online, pay a small annual or monthly membership fee, then browse and book items via the website. Items are collected and returned at the local branch during staffed hours. A damage deposit is held.

What they offer: Tools, kitchen appliances, camping gear, sports equipment, party/event equipment, and more.

Notable:

  • Has scaled to multiple London boroughs — demonstrates the branch network model
  • Strong on sustainability messaging and impact reporting
  • Publishes annual impact reports showing items borrowed, CO₂ saved, and money saved by members — useful framework for our own impact reporting

Sweden

Circle Centre Lund — Library of Goods

Location: Lund, Sweden Website: circlecentrelund.org/library-of-goods

Org structure: Part of the Circle Centre Lund, a broader circular economy hub. Operated as a non-profit with a sustainability focus.

How it works for users: Members pay a small fee to join and can borrow items during opening hours. The library is co-located with a repair café and other circular economy services, creating a hub model.

What they offer: Tools, household items, sporting goods, garden equipment.

Notable:

  • The hub model — co-locating the LoT with a repair café, skill-sharing space, and other services — is an interesting model to consider for Nelson Tasman, particularly given the Menzshed, Bike Hub, and Make/Shift Spaces connections already identified.
  • Strong community and volunteer culture.

In Summary

  1. The model works — community-run tool and thing libraries are sustainable in NZ and internationally
  2. Low membership fees are the norm — a small annual fee is well-accepted and helps sustain operations without creating a significant barrier
  3. Online booking is a de facto expectation — users expect to be able to browse and reserve online
  4. Co-location reduces costs — sharing space with an existing community facility (library, community centre, makerspace) significantly reduces overhead
  5. Council partnerships are valuable — even where the LoT is independent, a relationship with the library service or council adds credibility and may open doors to space
  6. Impact reporting matters — funders and the community respond well to concrete impact metrics (items borrowed, money saved, CO₂ avoided, workshops attended etc)