## 3 Results  
The networks present in the UIPs of the three cities as they moved towards consolidation are depicted in Figures 2-4, and Table 1 highlights the key aspects of the UIPs that came into place during the co-creation process. The roles of the actors are defined according to the relational approach, i.e., focusing on the actual type of tie between the actors composing the network under analysis. We identified the following roles: leader (actor that has a coordinating function); enabler (actor that is able to mobilize or activate further actors); mediator (actor that moderates between two or more actors); gatekeeper (actor that prevents or blocks other actors to enter in the process) [41]. For the sake of this article, these four actors' roles demonstrated sufficient to analyze the network structure in the case studies. Figure 3: Integrated collaborative governance models depicted in Milan. Source: [PERSON]. Note: the Milanese case study was mainly led by the municipality as the main lead actor of the polycentric network. More in depth, the facilitation agency (Eliante) developed a more intermediary role as agreed within all partners to enhance the co-creation process flow. The University plays a neutral third partner role in the network to support the tools and methodological approach in co-creation adopted in the overall pathway towards an integrated governance process, see [[http://guidance.clevercities.eu/](http://guidance.clevercities.eu/)]([http://guidance.clevercities.eu/](http://guidance.clevercities.eu/)) (accessed on 18 November 2022) by [PERSON] & [PERSON] (2018) from Polimi. Figure 2: Integrated collaborative governance models depicted in London. Source: Bradley. Note: In South Thamesmead where the ULLs were implanted, Peabody was developing most projects following standard consultation methods. With the previous work in another neighborhood (the Moorings) and the new CLEVER Cities ULLs, new models were being tested that included residents earlier on in the process, with a wider scope of involvement and more significant powers over decisions. It can be seen that although different governance networks were in play, the connections between networks tended to involve a lead or principal grouping that had more responsibility in making final decisions and satellite networks that reached out into the larger community. Thus, polycentric relationships were present in all three cities after our analysis. Having a core network connected to other networks is an example of a hybrid solution that helps keep decision-making structures in the middle ground between top-down and bottom-up systems. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Leadership** & **Key Starting** & **Core Typology** & **Polycentric** & **Principal Pathway** \\  & **Approach** & **Scheme** & **Characteristic** & \\ \hline
**London UIP** & & & & \\ **(Lead: Peabody housing association with GLA CLEVER Cities Lead)** & Community & Lead + enabler + appointed partnership with three partnership + network & Yes, central partnership with three satellite networks. & Designing + strengthening intra-network connections. \\ \hline
**Milan UIP** & & & & \\ **(Lead: Directorate of urban planning, Municipality of Milan)** & & & & \\ **(**)** & & & \\ \hline
**Hamburg UIP (Lead: Department for the economy, construction, and environment)** & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparative analysis of the three city structures across their co-governance schemes. Figure 4: Integrated collaborative governance structure depicted in Hamburg. Source: Arlati. Note: the Hamburg case is mainly led by a network composed of the District Public Administration and the Community planning agency. The former had an overall coordination role, while the latter was responsible for activating further local actors (such as the school community in ULL3). Other project partners, such as the universities and the Ministry, contributed with additional theoretical knowledge and legal aspects.