582
G. Nicolino and S. R. S. Barros
institution can maximize the awareness of sustainability initiatives implemented on
campus.
For the purpose and viability of this research, a limited number of students were
interviewed, according to internal policies of UFF. This number provides statistical
consistency concerning the Environmental Science and Environmental Engineering
departments. As most of the Campus bachelor’s degrees incorporates sustainable
development concepts in the curricula, it is believed that the sample group in this
research provides an insight into students’ perceptions of the university. For a more
comprehensive analysis of UFF’s institutional image, it would be interesting to complement this study by also investigating the perceptions of other stakeholder groups.
It is important to establish that as a marketing tool, the GAUSI instrument and
analyses-method provided the prioritization criterium outcome in this research based
on an item’s impact into the university’s institutional image and attractiveness. The
results do not take into account the social and/or environmental impact, positive or
negative, that each sustainability initiative would generate. Furthermore, the prioritization criterium outcome disregard the financial investment necessary to implement,
advance or maintain each of the sustainability initiatives. It is then suggested that a
complementary analysis is conducted verifying the economic viability of the items,
compared to the available investment budget.
Finally, by showing universities the value of sustainability into improving their
attractiveness, this research and proposed analyses-method intends to incentivize
higher education institutions to embrace and engage with sustainability efforts, by
teaching, experiencing and promoting sustainable development to students, staff,
faculty members and their community.
References
Anderson D et al (2011) Estatística aplicada à Administração e Economia. Cengage Learning, São
Paulo
Da Silva Filho J (2011) Treatment of uncertainties with algorithms of the paraconsistent annotated
logic. J Intell Learn Syst Appl 4:144–153
Keller K (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. J Mark
57(1):1–22
Monteiro D, Azevedo M (2009) O Campus da Praia Vermelha da Universidade Federal Fluminense.
VIII Seminário Docomomo, Rio de Janeiro
Nejati M, Nejati M (2013) Assessment of sustainable university factors from the perspective of
university students. J Clean Prod 48:101–107
Nicolino G (2016) Percepção da sustentabilidade de alunos de ciência ambiental. Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói
Nicolino G, Barros S (2016) Introducing the Graphical Assessment of Universities’ Sustainability
Image (GAUSI) instrument: a marketing tool. In: Leal Filho W, Zint M (eds) The contribution of
social sciences to sustainable development at universities. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–212
Sääksjärvi M, Samiee S (2011) Relationships among brand identity, brand image and brand
preference: differences between cyber and extension retail brands over time. J Interact Mark
25(3):169–177
G. Nicolino and S. R. S. Barros
institution can maximize the awareness of sustainability initiatives implemented on
campus.
For the purpose and viability of this research, a limited number of students were
interviewed, according to internal policies of UFF. This number provides statistical
consistency concerning the Environmental Science and Environmental Engineering
departments. As most of the Campus bachelor’s degrees incorporates sustainable
development concepts in the curricula, it is believed that the sample group in this
research provides an insight into students’ perceptions of the university. For a more
comprehensive analysis of UFF’s institutional image, it would be interesting to complement this study by also investigating the perceptions of other stakeholder groups.
It is important to establish that as a marketing tool, the GAUSI instrument and
analyses-method provided the prioritization criterium outcome in this research based
on an item’s impact into the university’s institutional image and attractiveness. The
results do not take into account the social and/or environmental impact, positive or
negative, that each sustainability initiative would generate. Furthermore, the prioritization criterium outcome disregard the financial investment necessary to implement,
advance or maintain each of the sustainability initiatives. It is then suggested that a
complementary analysis is conducted verifying the economic viability of the items,
compared to the available investment budget.
Finally, by showing universities the value of sustainability into improving their
attractiveness, this research and proposed analyses-method intends to incentivize
higher education institutions to embrace and engage with sustainability efforts, by
teaching, experiencing and promoting sustainable development to students, staff,
faculty members and their community.
References
Anderson D et al (2011) Estatística aplicada à Administração e Economia. Cengage Learning, São
Paulo
Da Silva Filho J (2011) Treatment of uncertainties with algorithms of the paraconsistent annotated
logic. J Intell Learn Syst Appl 4:144–153
Keller K (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. J Mark
57(1):1–22
Monteiro D, Azevedo M (2009) O Campus da Praia Vermelha da Universidade Federal Fluminense.
VIII Seminário Docomomo, Rio de Janeiro
Nejati M, Nejati M (2013) Assessment of sustainable university factors from the perspective of
university students. J Clean Prod 48:101–107
Nicolino G (2016) Percepção da sustentabilidade de alunos de ciência ambiental. Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói
Nicolino G, Barros S (2016) Introducing the Graphical Assessment of Universities’ Sustainability
Image (GAUSI) instrument: a marketing tool. In: Leal Filho W, Zint M (eds) The contribution of
social sciences to sustainable development at universities. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–212
Sääksjärvi M, Samiee S (2011) Relationships among brand identity, brand image and brand
preference: differences between cyber and extension retail brands over time. J Interact Mark
25(3):169–177