The articles in the Research Topic highlight AFNs' contribution to transformation processes that occur on an individual, community and system level. Most articles point to the potential of AFNs for social transformation around food production and consumption, mainly by building social relations. AFNs create connections between producers and consumers (Stehrenberger and Schneider; Verfuerth et al.) that are often long-lasting (Kondo et al.), contribute to community-building (Benedek; Nayak and Hartwell; Stehrenberger and Schneider; Black) and create mutual solidarity and responsibility between the actors involved (Kondo et al.; Ušča and Tisenkopfs).

Furthermore, being involved in AFNs can connect people with traditional culture and knowledge (Black), contributing to its preservation (Maysels et al.). The connection with the region where food is grown is also often emphasized (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.; Verfuerth et al.; Black), implying opportunities for place-based transformation (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.).

AFNs also develop strategies and offer spaces to empower their members, supporting active food citizenship (Stehrenberger and Schneider; Kondo et al.). These strategies include transformative learning experiences (Deskin and Harvey), knowledge-sharing (Nayak and Hartwell), consumers contributing their skills (Nayak and Hartwell), educational programs for farmers (Denton et al.), but also learning that naturally occurs during participation, e.g., increased knowledge about food seasonality (Verfuerth et al.).

Empowerment can also be created through inclusionary measures. Although some initiatives may not reach low-income people (Egli et al.; Kondo et al.), other AFN models are more successful in strengthening food security (Nayak and Hartwell; Verfuerth et al.), food justice (Deskin and Harvey), and solidarity (Stehrenberger and Schneider; Verfuerth et al.). The local food clubs studied by Benedek successfully involved many low-income members, and Nayak and Hartwell show that community food markets can complement food banks and are a dignified way for marginalized people to gain access to food. The participation in CFSA and distributing produce at a local food security initiative increased the awareness of food injustice and motivated participants to increase accessibility to CFSA (Deskin and Harvey). Farmers also increased food security by raising solidarity funds or cooperating with local food charity partners (Verfuerth et al.).

While most transformation processes occur on an individual or community level, which can in itself be a leverage point for change (Deskin and Harvey), several authors reported beginnings of broader systemic change. Some AFNs can be considered grassroots movements actively challenging hegemonic structures (Maysels et al.). In some cases, farmers were motivated to invest necessary resources to redesign local food supply chains despite varying capacities (Martens et al.). Using organic and biodynamic production approaches also contributes to the sustainability and resilience of agri-food systems (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.), and from an ecological perspective such approaches often outperform reference systems (Egli et al.). AFNs also proved their resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, being able to quickly adapt to disruptions and changing consumer needs (Ušča and Tisenkopfs). Results on the economic performance of AFNs such as CSA are still limited, but existing evidence indicates a high economic viability supporting a spread of these models and their transformative impact (Egli et al.). Unlike the existing system, AFNs distribute capital instead of concentrating it, benefiting farmers instead of multinational companies (Benedek) and fostering local economic development (Nayak and Hartwell).

At the same time, even within one AFN model, such as CSA, there is a broad spectrum of typologies attracting consumers with different needs. This shows that AFNs are not homogeneous and still have potential to scale out and up and reach consumers with different needs (Middendorf and Rommel). The impact of AFNs is strengthened by coordinated action and networking (Benedek; Verfuerth et al.; Kondo et al.), e.g., with institutional actors: Martens et al. highlight the positive impact of local politicians promoting and legitimizing AFNs in their municipalities.

To drive food system transformation, however, AFNs must overcome several barriers. A common challenge is a lack of resources (da Rocha Oliveira Teixeira et al.), including limited access to funding programs (Egli et al.), educational opportunities for farmers (Denton et al.), and shortages of time, labor, and capital (Maysels et al.). Different obstacles also prevent farmers transitioning from conventional to alternative farming approaches, for example because they do not see sufficient potential in alternative ways of farming (Benedek) or feel unable to change their marketing strategies for reasons of age (Denton et al.). New entrant farmers and agricultural successors are often discouraged to (keep) working in agriculture because of the negative image of farming (Black). Furthermore, AFN actors often cannot fully escape market dynamics (Martens et al.; Maysels et al.), which forces them to act against their values to survive economically (Maysels et al.).

Finally, a lack of community engagement can prevent the success of AFNs (Benedek). If members do not actively participate, they are less likely to develop a sense of responsibility toward their AFN and more likely to leave (Stehrenberger and Schneider). The high dependence on volunteer labor, especially of women, can also lead to burnout (Benedek; Kondo et al.). Overall, there seems to be a trade-off between adjusting AFN practices to consumers' needs and maintaining AFNs original values. While a high effort to participate and a lack of convenience causes members to drop out (Verfuerth et al.), putting more emphasis on consumers' convenience may dilute the social movement orientation of some AFNs (Kondo et al.).

This Research Topic illustrates the broad variety of AFN models and their different approaches to fostering sustainable, resilient, and equitable food systems through local, indigenous, and innovative practices that build strong connections between producers and consumers. Taken together, these efforts highlight an array of strategies that can be mobilized to scale AFNs out and up and, ultimately, build more sustainable and resilient alternative food systems. When scaling, however, AFNs face various challenges within the dominant food system. Overcoming these barriers requires coordinated efforts among diverse stakeholders, better access to resources, and community and institutional support. Even more importantly, however, it requires a shift in discourse from achieving sustainability through incremental change and techno-centric solutions toward a transformational paradigm that centers principles such as sufficiency, regeneration, fair distribution, commoning, and care (McGreevy et al., 2022). The AFNs described in this Research Topic offer a promising starting point. Key priorities for future research will be to assess their effectiveness according to these principles, and to identify successful strategies for expanding these models and transferring them between different contexts.