290
C. R. P. Vasconcelos et al.
analysed. To achieve the purpose of their study, the authors performed the analysis of
19 SATs and 1134 indicators for sustainability assessment. According to the adopted
methodology, each indicator was exclusively assigned to one of the Lozano et al.
(2015) sustainable development dimensions. Those indicators related to administrative structure and broad-scale policies were assigned to the institutional framework,
while indicators addressing assessment and reporting processes were categorised into
the “Assessment and reporting” dimension. Further, indicators related to the HEIs
on an institutional level were related to the new category “higher education institution (HEI)”, such as demographic effects on the region through student in-migration.
The column “not applicable (NA)” included those that did not fit in any of the other
dimensions of the Lozano et al. (2015) model. Table 2 presents these SATs and their
relation to the seven Lozano et al. (2015) sustainable development dimensions and,
also the new categories, HEI and NA, as proposed by Findler et al. (2018).
According to Table 2, the dimension with the highest number of indicators
is Campus operations, followed by Institutional framework (20.90%), Education
(16.04%) and Research (7.85%). The results are in line with the works of Fischer
et al. (2015). The study of Findler et al. (2018) is particularly relevant because it
highlights the possibility of a relationship between the sustainability indicators of
the 19 studied SATs with the key dimensions of the sustainability proposed in the
Lozano et al. (2015) model (Table 1).
Much of the attention of sustainability research focusing on HEIs has been directed
towards the dimensions of education and research. Moreover, considerable attention
has been given to isolated aspects of the campus sustainability operations dimension,
such as green building (Hopkins 2016), waste (Zen et al. 2016) and carbon emission
(Altan 2010; Larsen et al. 2013; Ramos et al. 2015). Nejati and Nejati (2013, p. 102)
assert that “sustainability practices within the academic setting need to be understood
and practiced by all members of the organization at various levels. Only then can a
collective force for achieving the sustainability mission be mobilized successfully”.
While literature concerned with Sustainable Assessment Tools (SATs) in HEIs
recognises that most of those are focused on inside impacts, authors like Findler et al.
(2019) and Beynaghi et al. (2016) have noticed that HEI sustainable development
efforts have an effect that reflects beyond its organisational boundaries. The HEI SD
impacts might emerge from a variety of contrasting areas such as economy, societal
challenges, natural environment, policy making, culture, and demographics (Findler
et al. 2018).
4 Students’ Perception of Sustainable HEIs
Although tools that use perception measurement to assess sustainability in HEIs
differ from traditional ones, which often use objective measurement variables such
as energy consumption in kWh, water consumption in m
3 , and tons of selective waste
collection, among others, they contribute to a better understanding of HEIs’ sustainability. The SATs performed by the subjective approach of assessing service users’
C. R. P. Vasconcelos et al.
analysed. To achieve the purpose of their study, the authors performed the analysis of
19 SATs and 1134 indicators for sustainability assessment. According to the adopted
methodology, each indicator was exclusively assigned to one of the Lozano et al.
(2015) sustainable development dimensions. Those indicators related to administrative structure and broad-scale policies were assigned to the institutional framework,
while indicators addressing assessment and reporting processes were categorised into
the “Assessment and reporting” dimension. Further, indicators related to the HEIs
on an institutional level were related to the new category “higher education institution (HEI)”, such as demographic effects on the region through student in-migration.
The column “not applicable (NA)” included those that did not fit in any of the other
dimensions of the Lozano et al. (2015) model. Table 2 presents these SATs and their
relation to the seven Lozano et al. (2015) sustainable development dimensions and,
also the new categories, HEI and NA, as proposed by Findler et al. (2018).
According to Table 2, the dimension with the highest number of indicators
is Campus operations, followed by Institutional framework (20.90%), Education
(16.04%) and Research (7.85%). The results are in line with the works of Fischer
et al. (2015). The study of Findler et al. (2018) is particularly relevant because it
highlights the possibility of a relationship between the sustainability indicators of
the 19 studied SATs with the key dimensions of the sustainability proposed in the
Lozano et al. (2015) model (Table 1).
Much of the attention of sustainability research focusing on HEIs has been directed
towards the dimensions of education and research. Moreover, considerable attention
has been given to isolated aspects of the campus sustainability operations dimension,
such as green building (Hopkins 2016), waste (Zen et al. 2016) and carbon emission
(Altan 2010; Larsen et al. 2013; Ramos et al. 2015). Nejati and Nejati (2013, p. 102)
assert that “sustainability practices within the academic setting need to be understood
and practiced by all members of the organization at various levels. Only then can a
collective force for achieving the sustainability mission be mobilized successfully”.
While literature concerned with Sustainable Assessment Tools (SATs) in HEIs
recognises that most of those are focused on inside impacts, authors like Findler et al.
(2019) and Beynaghi et al. (2016) have noticed that HEI sustainable development
efforts have an effect that reflects beyond its organisational boundaries. The HEI SD
impacts might emerge from a variety of contrasting areas such as economy, societal
challenges, natural environment, policy making, culture, and demographics (Findler
et al. 2018).
4 Students’ Perception of Sustainable HEIs
Although tools that use perception measurement to assess sustainability in HEIs
differ from traditional ones, which often use objective measurement variables such
as energy consumption in kWh, water consumption in m
3 , and tons of selective waste
collection, among others, they contribute to a better understanding of HEIs’ sustainability. The SATs performed by the subjective approach of assessing service users’