**4. Discussion**

This study proposed a new food supply chain model by reviewing four AFN models highlighting their characteristics, potential, and limits. Although AFNs promote an ecosustainable paradigm change in the food chain, the current examples cannot provide an alternative capable of large scale spreading due to some constitutive limitations on their structure and governance explained previously. Therefore, we argue that an alternative should have the ability to "jump the scale".

Our proposal is based on considering all the needs of all stakeholders in the supply chain simultaneously, as neither the current large-scale distribution nor the AFNs do that. Therefore, the Needs Matrix developed by Max-Neef within the economic model of H-SD was used to identify the needs (and their satisfiers) of all stakeholders in the supply chain. In contrast, the methodological framework of DT was used to develop a systematic and comprehensive design procedure. Therefore, the design model was built based on the criteria of the H-SD economic model and was intended to be a tool for spreading the vision and values, starting with the restructuring of economic processes.

Through the elaborate design method, the "Food Village" model was shaped and proposed in this study as a food supply network far from the current economic mechanisms and based on the community. Starting from the needs of the stakeholders, the design has allowed the strength of the community in creating economic processes that simultaneously allow sustainability, equity, reciprocity, and freedom as envisaged by the vision of the CE and the ECG to be enhanced. Basing governance on the community has favoured constructing a logistic and economic system capable of systemically incorporating all the system elements that favour sustainability (circular economic processes, agroecology, participatory

governance, fair price or fair compensation, bio-architecture, etc.). Finalising the elements of the system to respond to current needs has opened up space for new processes within the economic exchange. An example is the co-design of prices. Establishing the Food Village on a community cooperative invests micro-transformation modules of local production on-site as a venture for all the stakeholders. Thus, this technology reduces the intermediary costs, leaving a greater margin for producers and consumers to compare and identify a fair price or fair compensation in a participatory process. Such a structured economic process promotes social interactions based on reciprocity by opening the space to a more cohesive society. Moreover, the model of the Food Village can be a powerful tool in promoting the rural economy, increasing the food resilience of the area, and reducing environmental impacts on the territory.

Following its application to the food supply chain, the proposed design system effectively identifies the satisfiers and design solutions capable of simultaneously promoting the different stakeholders' satisfiers. Therefore, the Max-Neef Needs Matrix is an excellent analytical tool. Furthermore, the proposed method is useful and adaptable to economic contexts other than that of the Food Chain. Therefore, this procedure was considered a useful tool for the design of new economic processes capable of responding to the needs of all stakeholders.

The main limitation of this system is the length of time required for the need analysis process and a certain redundancy of the initial design elements. Therefore, in this model, these latest approaches are subsequently clustered.

This study aimed to provide a way of "moving alternative food networks beyond the niche" [25] (p. 1). Thus, further research and exchange of opinions are expected to arise from our food for thought.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods11101447/s1, Table S1: matrix of consumers, Table S2: matrix of producers, Table S3: matrix of holders, Table S4: matrix of employees, Table S5: matrix of collectivity, Table S6: the clustered design elements.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft preparation, G.S. Methodology, paper administration, supervision, B.T. Writing—original draft preparation, visualization, writing—reviewing, editing, C.P. Investigation, G.G. Writing—reviewing, L.C. Conceptualization, visualization, R.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by both the project "Community Project Cibo Nostrum: the added value for agricultural products", financed by Sub-Measure 16.2.2 of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014–2020 for Umbria Region (Italy) (Unique Identification Code I68I18000200002) and of the project "Entrepreneurial choices in a context of AgriSocial Business Model and of Welfare Society", financed by University of Perugia's Basic Research Programme.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data are available on request from the authors.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
