## 3 Results
From Table 1, it is possible to see that there were core networks in each of the cities and that all of them moved from a top-down to a more central governance position on the spectrum of typologies through the mechanism of an appointed or delegated partnership. As at least part of the funding initiative for this project came from a centralized source (the European Union in this case), it is not surprising that the move towards more collaborative governance in each of the three cities followed similar paths. Also of note is that in each of the cities, the core appointed network did not attempt to integrate and simplify all existing networks into a centralized decision-making group but maintained networks that were loosely connected by key stakeholders and enabling organizations. These key players often participated in different networks and made intra-network, polycentric governance a common solution for all three cities. These commonalities are even more interesting, considering that the starting point in each city was different. Both London and Milan primarily utilized a design approach to the creation of the network, while Hamburg utilized a decentralized network of organizations that needed to be brought together in order for cooperation to occur. This demonstrates that pathways to collaborative governance can be varied, but a move to the middle tends to facilitate shared governance. Looking in a bit more detail at each of the cities, we can observe some commonalities and distinctions. It is important to note that the above and following figures are not network maps but typologies which are positioned in relative functional relationship to one another. These figures, therefore, do not show the exact number of stakeholders that participated but rather the types of relationships that developed in each city's living labs. London's core partnership had an initial top-down component in that Peabody Senior Management first approves a contract which is then taken on (delegated responsibility) by the Landscape & Placemaking Team. The Team was open to creating a relatively horizontal governance structure together with the other partners in CLEVER Cities, including the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Groundwork London. From that point on, Peabody's Senior Management Team was made aware of key milestones, but the decision-making processes progressed in a way that explored significant levels of community participation. Thus, the project moved from what would typically be a top-down, technically based decision-making structure to one with community members as co-clients. This typology shown (in the consolidation phase) in Figure 2 describes the partnership formed between Peabody, the CLEVER Cities organizations, and the Community Design Collective (CDC), the latter of which was comprised of a diverse range of community members. Groundwork London eventually occupied the role of an enabler working directly with the CDC to facilitate the engagement process and interface with the design team. Other satellite networks were brought into the process through differing processes. Local emergent groups were guided and supported, forming a network of socio-environmental groups that had overlapping members and community spaces and loose internal connections. For example, a group called The Nature Forum was part of a key nodal change when their role evolved from the initial conception as a possible design panel to becoming a socio-environmental stakeholder group brought together to consider Thamesmead's green infrastructure. Other smaller networks came together in distinct manners, such as the set-up of a group of Community Researchers or through the application of a Grants Program. These networks comprise individuals who are forming emergent networks through communications, meetings, and events.