572
G. Nicolino and S. R. S. Barros
to the categories A&R, E&R, COp and COr of the questionnaire, known as factors in the Paraconsistent Logic, therefore calculating their own Disagreement (DF),
Agreement (AF) and overall Level of Agreement (LAF).
As results are analyzed separately to the stem statements (1), (2) and (3), to each
item of the questionnaire is calculated the respective level of agreement LAp1, LAp2
and LAp3, which are interpreted as follows:
– LAp1—perceived relevance of the item in the construction of a sustainability
image for universities;
– LAp2—perceived relevance of the item in universities attractiveness;
– LAp3—perceived commitment to the item by the university investigated.
The level of agreement LAp1, LAp2 and LAp3 for each sustainability initiative,
calculated with the data collected in this research, is further presented in Table 4;
together with the prioritization criterium.
The prioritization criterium is based on identifying the items with greater contribution to the university’s sustainability image and attractiveness—higher LAp1 and
LAp2—and with lowest perceived commitment by UFF—lower LAp3. Those items
would represent more room and opportunity for UFF to gain branding value and to
build a sustainability reputation by engaging with these initiatives.
To calculate the prioritization criterium it is first necessary to unify LAp1 and
LAp2 into the Sustainability Attractiveness indicator (SAt), whilst LAp3 is interpreted as the University Image indicator (UnI). Therefore, it is possible to calculate
de divergency gap between both indicators, resulting in the factor of prioritization P.
P is calculated for each item of the questionnaire by:
iv. P = S At − U n I, where:
v. S At =
L A p1 + L A p2
: 2
vi. U n I = L A p3
Value of P varies in an interval of [−100; 100] and can be interpreted by Table 3,
proposing a classification into levels of priority. Negative value of P is not divided
in intervals, as negative P (0 ≥ P) is not considered a priority.
The prioritization criterium calculation for the results of this study are presented in
Table 4, where the sustainability initiatives are identified by their item numbers, sided
by their category. There are also presented the calculated level of agreement to each
stem statements (1), (2) and (3), and their consequential Sustainability Attractiveness
indicator (SAt), University Image indicator (UnI), factor of prioritization P and level
of priority.
Although no item was considered of strategic priority, out of the 23 university
sustainability initiatives, eleven were considered of high priority and eleven were
considered of moderate priority. In comparison, only one was categorized of low
G. Nicolino and S. R. S. Barros
to the categories A&R, E&R, COp and COr of the questionnaire, known as factors in the Paraconsistent Logic, therefore calculating their own Disagreement (DF),
Agreement (AF) and overall Level of Agreement (LAF).
As results are analyzed separately to the stem statements (1), (2) and (3), to each
item of the questionnaire is calculated the respective level of agreement LAp1, LAp2
and LAp3, which are interpreted as follows:
– LAp1—perceived relevance of the item in the construction of a sustainability
image for universities;
– LAp2—perceived relevance of the item in universities attractiveness;
– LAp3—perceived commitment to the item by the university investigated.
The level of agreement LAp1, LAp2 and LAp3 for each sustainability initiative,
calculated with the data collected in this research, is further presented in Table 4;
together with the prioritization criterium.
The prioritization criterium is based on identifying the items with greater contribution to the university’s sustainability image and attractiveness—higher LAp1 and
LAp2—and with lowest perceived commitment by UFF—lower LAp3. Those items
would represent more room and opportunity for UFF to gain branding value and to
build a sustainability reputation by engaging with these initiatives.
To calculate the prioritization criterium it is first necessary to unify LAp1 and
LAp2 into the Sustainability Attractiveness indicator (SAt), whilst LAp3 is interpreted as the University Image indicator (UnI). Therefore, it is possible to calculate
de divergency gap between both indicators, resulting in the factor of prioritization P.
P is calculated for each item of the questionnaire by:
iv. P = S At − U n I, where:
v. S At =
L A p1 + L A p2
: 2
vi. U n I = L A p3
Value of P varies in an interval of [−100; 100] and can be interpreted by Table 3,
proposing a classification into levels of priority. Negative value of P is not divided
in intervals, as negative P (0 ≥ P) is not considered a priority.
The prioritization criterium calculation for the results of this study are presented in
Table 4, where the sustainability initiatives are identified by their item numbers, sided
by their category. There are also presented the calculated level of agreement to each
stem statements (1), (2) and (3), and their consequential Sustainability Attractiveness
indicator (SAt), University Image indicator (UnI), factor of prioritization P and level
of priority.
Although no item was considered of strategic priority, out of the 23 university
sustainability initiatives, eleven were considered of high priority and eleven were
considered of moderate priority. In comparison, only one was categorized of low