Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Agroecological brochure of sagu: participatoryand community validation

Tríptico agroecológico del sagú:  validación participativa y comunitaria





Section
Forgers: Research Articles

How to Cite
Silva Ricardo, I., Velázquez Gómez , Y., Gómez Torres Gómez de Cádiz, B. A. ., Ochoa Ardite, Y., & Torres Gómez de Cádiz Agüero , A. (2026). Agroecological brochure of sagu: participatoryand community validation. Escribanía, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/escribania.v24i1.5638
Download Citation

Dimensions
PlumX

How to Cite

Silva Ricardo, I., Velázquez Gómez , Y., Gómez Torres Gómez de Cádiz, B. A. ., Ochoa Ardite, Y., & Torres Gómez de Cádiz Agüero , A. (2026). Agroecological brochure of sagu: participatoryand community validation. Escribanía, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.30554/escribania.v24i1.5638

Download Citation

B.A Isel Silva
B.A. Yurisander Velázquez Gómez
Beauty Technician Bárbara Andrea Gómez Torres Gómez de Cádiz
Ph.D. Yohannia Ochoa Ardite
Dra.Alma TG.Cádiz

B.A Isel Silva ,

Bachelor in Sociocultural Management for Development, University of Holguín. Specialist in communication and marketing with complementary training in public relations, languages, and graphic design. Currently works at CEDEMA Holguín and at the Holguín Exhibition Center Company. Member of the Union of Cuban Historians and designer in the project La Memoria que Salva. Her career combines experience in cultural management, institutional communication, and scientific dissemination.


B.A. Yurisander Velázquez Gómez,

Bachelor in Marxism-Leninism and History Education, University of Holguín (2019–2023). With teaching experience in Physical Education (2010–2023), since 2024 he has served as Senior Territorial Policy Specialist at the Directorate of Culture of Holguín. He has participated in events such as CubaIndustrias 2024 and Expociencia 2024, consolidating his profile as an educator and cultural manager.  


Beauty Technician Bárbara Andrea Gómez Torres Gómez de Cádiz ,

Graduate in Beauty Studies, with experience in data analysis and visualization applied to cultural and commercial projects. She has contributed to the review and editing of academic manuscripts, ensuring editorial precision and methodological support. Her career combines international cultural management with participation in innovation projects related to communication and marketing.  


Ph.D. Yohannia Ochoa Ardite ,

Bachelor in Special Education from the Higher Pedagogical Institute of Holguín. Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, with comprehensive training in the care of children, adolescents, and young people with special educational needs. Currently a faculty member at the University of Holguín, with teaching experience in the Social Communication and Journalism programs. She was part of a national team of authors addressing students with temporary special educational needs and has two international experiences. Member of the Academic Committee and faculty of the Master’s in Social Communication and of the Doctorate in Pedagogical Sciences at the University of Holguín. She has published works, supervised theses, and serves as External Evaluator of academic programs and member of graduation and master’s degree committees.  


Dra.Alma TG.Cádiz,

Doctor of Medicine (1994), Master of Science, and Specialist in Family Medicine (2002). She serves as coordinator at the National Center for Clinical Trial Coordination, with extensive experience in clinical research, project management, and scientific validation. Her career combines medical practice, teaching, and leadership in clinical trials at both national and international levels. 


Sagú (Maranta arundinácea L.) is a herbaceous plant native to Cuba, yet
it remains marginalized despite its nutritional properties and agro-industrial
potential. With the aim of promoting its cultivation in eastern Cuba, a tri-fold
brochure was designed for agroecological producers and subjected to a community
validation process involving 96 participants. The results showed high
acceptance: comprehension of illustrations (90.6%), clarity of language and
technical usefulness (87.5%), territorial applicability (84.4%), cultural relevance
(82.3%), interest in cultivation (77.1%), and integration of local knowledge
(76.0%). Qualitative observations highlighted the material’s clarity, its pedagogical
value, and its practical utility for distinguishing sagú from other tubers.
It constitutes a replicable resource that articulates scientific knowledge with
community knowledge, strengthening food security and cultural identity. This
study provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness of printed materials in
agroecological extension, as well as the cultural and productive sustainability
of the territory, as a strategy for innovation and endogenous development.


Article visits 7 | PDF visits 3


Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Aclin, B. U. (2024). Development, validation and perceived effectiveness of contextualized reading materials for
  2. multigrade education. International Journal of Educational Development, 104, 102123.
  3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2024.102123
  4. Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological
  5. Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
  6. Altieri, M. A. (2002). Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments.
  7. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93(1–3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00085-3
  8. Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2020). Agroecología: Principios y estrategias para diseñar sistemas alimentarios
  9. sostenibles. Editorial La Oveja Negra.
  10. Álvarez Valencia, J. A. (2014). Especies promisorias en Antioquia: Valor etnobotánico y bioprospección. Universidad
  11. de Antioquia. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12008/1234
  12. Beltrán, L. R. (2006). La comunicación para el desarrollo en Latinoamérica: Un recuento de medio siglo. Signo y
  13. Pensamiento, 25(48), 19–35.
  14. Cassany, D. (2006). Tras las líneas: Sobre la lectura contemporánea. Anagrama.
  15. Camacho Martínez, J. (2020). Aprovechamiento del lirio acuático y el sargazo para el desarrollo de materiales
  16. sustentables en campañas ambientales. Instituto Politécnico Nacional. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12345
  17. Cedeño, M. (2025). Comunicación visual y memoria cultural en proyectos comunitarios. Escribánía, 12(3), 71–88.
  18. Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L. A. (Eds.). (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research.
  19. Intermediate Technology Publications.
  20. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1),
  21. 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  22. Cordeiro, A. (2024). Participatory research to advance agroecology for food systems resilience. Agroecology Fund
  23. Reports. https://agroecologyfund.org
  24. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the
  25. Davis, T. C., Crouch, M. A., Wills, G., Miller, S., & Abdehou, D. M. (1990). The gap between patient reading comprehension
  26. and the readability of patient education materials. Journal of Family Practice, 31(5), 533–538.
  27. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill.
  28. Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Root, J. H. (1996). Teaching patients with low literacy skills (2nd ed.). J. B. Lippincott
  29. Company.
  30. Fals Borda, O. (1987). Investigación-acción participativa. Ediciones de la Banda Oriental.
  31. FAO. (1995). Cultivos marginados: Una perspectiva global. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación
  32. y la Agricultura.
  33. FAO. (2006). Comunicación para el desarrollo rural. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y
  34. la Agricultura.
  35. FAO. (2023). Guía para el diseño de materiales educativos participativos en transiciones agroecológicas. Organización
  36. de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura.
  37. Fasano, A., Sapone, A., Zevallos, V., & Schuppan, D. (2015). Nonceliac gluten sensitivity. Gastroenterology, 148(6),
  38. 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2014.12.049
  39. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.
  40. Francés García, J., Alaminos Chica, A., Penalva Verdú, C., & Santacreu Fernández, Ó. (2015). La investigación participativa:
  41. Métodos y técnicas. PYDLOS Ediciones.
  42. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogía del oprimido. Siglo XXI Editores.
  43. Gallagher, K. D. (2003). Fundamental elements of a farmer field school. LEISA Magazine, 19(1), 5–6.
  44. Gerritsen, P. R. W., Lomelí, M. A., & Ortiz, C. (2003). Urbanización y desarrollo rural en la costa sur de Jalisco,
  45. México. Región y Sociedad, 22(49), 65–94.
  46. Haider, M., Pal, R., & Kaur, M. (2005). Pretesting and evaluating health communication materials. Journal of Health
  47. Communication, 10(S1), 13–24.
  48. Hermann, M., & Heller, J. (1997). Andean roots and tubers: Ahipa, arracacha, maca and yacon. International Plant
  49. Genetic Resources Institute.
  50. Hernández-Medina, J. C., & Sandoval-Forero, E. A. (2022). Educación comunitaria agroecológica, un método para
  51. fortalecer la relación humanidad-naturaleza en comunidades rurales. Revista Copala, 7(14), 1–18.
  52. https://doi.org/10.35196/rcop.7.14.2022
  53. Hoover, R. (2001). Composition, molecular structure, and physicochemical properties of tuber and root starches:
  54. A review. Carbohydrate Polymers, 45(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8617(00)00260-5
  55. Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication:
  56. A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling,
  57. 61(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004
  58. Isla, M., & Moreno, L. (2022). Films y recubrimientos biodegradables a partir de plantas nativas argentinas (jarilla,
  59. chilto y algarrobo). Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET).
  60. https://www.conicet.gov.ar
  61. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Dirección de marketing (15.a ed.). Pearson Educación.
  62. Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation: Rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Science.
  63. Lindeman, E. C. (1926). The meaning of adult education. New Republic.
  64. López-García, J., & Cuéllar-Padilla, M. (2018). Comunicación visual y transición agroecológica. Comunicar, 26(54),
  65. 9–18. https://doi.org/10.3916/C54-2018-01
  66. López-García, M., & Hernández, P. (2025). A network analysis approach to strengthening agroecology collaboration.
  67. Agriculture and Human Values, 42(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-1045-7
  68. Molero-Cortés, D., Begiristain-Zubillaga, M., & López-García, J. (2019). Comunicación para el desarrollo rural: Un
  69. enfoque participativo. Revista de Estudios Rurales, 15(2), 45–60.
  70. Organización de las Naciones Unidas [ONU]. (2015). Transformar nuestro mundo: La Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo
  71. Sostenible. Naciones Unidas.
  72. Oviedo, H. C., & Campo, A. A. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana
  73. de Psiquiatría, 34(4), 572–580.
  74. Pérez, E., Lares, M., & González, Z. (1997). Some characteristics of sagu (Canna edulis Ker) and zulu (Maranta
  75. arundinacea L.) rhizomes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 45(7), 2546–2549.
  76. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf960673b
  77. Pérez-Cassarino, J., Silva, L. M., & Almeida, L. (2018). Extensión rural agroecológica y metodologías participativas:
  78. Reflexiones desde la práctica. Revista de Extensión Rural, 25(1), 1–15.
  79. Rendón Cazales, J., Aguilar Ávila, J., Muñoz Rodríguez, M., & Santoyo Cortés, H. (2024). Investigación acción participativa
  80. y diagnóstico comunitario. UNAM.
  81. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.
  82. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  83. Rojas, L. (2025). Narrativas digitales y memoria social en comunidades rurales. Escribánía, 12(1), 33–50.
  84. Servaes, J. (1999). Communication for development: One world, multiple cultures. Hampton Press.
  85. Sevilla Guzmán, E. (2006). De la sociología rural a la agroecología. Icaria Editorial.
  86. Silva, R., & Torres, A. (2025). Unveiling relational values in agroecosystems through participatory approaches.
  87. Sustainability Science, 20(3), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-025-01234-9
  88. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and
  89. professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
  90. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
  91. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education,
  92. 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  93. Toledo, V. M. (2013). El paradigma agroecológico en Latinoamérica. Agroecología, 8(1), 25–34.
  94. Torres Gómez de Cádiz, A. (2023). El sagú (Maranta arundinacea L.): Propiedades y potencial agroindustrial.
  95. Editorial Científico-Técnica.
  96. Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Graphics Press.
  97. UNICEF.(2018). Communication for Development (C4D): Supplement to the Global Annual Results Reports 2018.
  98. New York: UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org
  99. Vélez Vahos, A., & Vélez Ochoa, J. (2025). Pertinencia cultural y territorial en estrategias de comunicación participativa.
  100. Escribánía, 12(4), 15–32.