The research identified 64 actors engaged in the management of Görlitzer Park. The actors were put into seven categories based on their activities regarding the park (see Table 1). The categories are: (1) coordination and counselling; (2) safety and order; (3) cleaning and repair; (4) environmental and nature protection; (5) health and social issues; (6) children and youth; and (7) culture, sport and tourism.

Actors within the coordination and counselling category play a crucial role for the park and the neighbourhood. One of the actors is the district office for street and green space (Straßen- und Grünflächenamt). The district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg managed to create a new division within the Straßen- und Grünflächenamt, i.e. the department of public space, responsible for designing and developing public spaces within the district. Its tasks include “park and neighbourhood management, which takes care of the needs of different users on site and the department is in contact with the various actors in the green spaces and neighbourhoods”.

https://www.berlin.de/ba-friedrichshain-kreuzberg/politik-und-verwaltung/aemter/strassen-und-gruenflaechenamt/oeffentlicher-raum/ (05.02.2023).

Another important actor in this category is social space-oriented planning coordination (Sozialraumorientierte Planungskoordination), which is one of the coordination offices within the district. It promotes cooperation among all departments and actors in the field of social space. Regarding Görlitzer Park, it works closely with the park manager and organises a regular exchange called the practitioners’ round as well as a round table on Görlitzer Park. The network office is another actor that coordinates actors within the neighbourhood. The park council of Görlitzer Park also belongs to this category as it counsels the district office on making decisions related to the park. The park council was newly introduced in 2018 and is composed of 11 citizens.

Actors in the category of safety and order play an important role as they ensure safety within the park and the neighbourhood. The district office of public order (Ordnungsamt), the police and the park runners belong to this category. The park runner is a particularly interesting concept developed in the Görlitzer Park Action Plan and since implemented. The idea is to ensure safety in the park through social monitoring rather than through the presence of the Ordnungsamt and the police. Park runners monitor the park and its uses, communicate rules of conduct where necessary and offer help to those who need it by referring to social facilities and institutions operating in the neighbourhood.

https://www.sihoch3.com/ (05.02.2023).

Cleaning and repairing are other important activities, and are included in the management of the park. Here, the actors include the Berlin city cleaning service (Berliner Stadtreinigungsbetrieb) and a neighbourhood caretaker. The fact that the park is cleaned by the Berliner Stadtreinigungsbetrieb is an exceptional situation as this cleaning service is normally responsible for cleaning streets, while parks are cleaned by firms commissioned by the Straßen- und Grünflächenamt.

Actors in the other categories offer programmes that are related to the park. What is striking is the number of actors in the category of health and social issues. Slightly under half of the actors (n=29) are in this category. Due to the social problems in the park and the neighbourhood, a great number of health and social actors are engaged, including Gangway e.V., Joliba e.V., Fixpunkt e.V. and Fixpunkt gGmbH. There are also many actors in the category of culture, sport and tourism (n=14) as various activities are offered in the park. Actors offering sport courses or programmes include Sport 365 and Cabuwazi. The network also involves six actors in the category of children and youth. Kinderbauernhof, for instance, is an actor on site offering a place where families and children can come into contact with nature and animals. In addition, there are three actors from the category of environmental and nature protection.

There are various formats of interaction used which help actors network, share information and collaborate. It is possible to distinguish between inter-organisational and intra-organisational formats. Inter-organisational formats involve two or more organisations while intra-organisational formats refer to communication within the same organisation through regular meetings and personal consultation (Interviewee 7). Some inter-organisational formats allow for exchange between similar actors. For instance, actors in the safety and order category (i.e. Ordnungsamt, the police and park runners) have their own format where they meet and communicate in the park, currently two or three times a month (Interviewee 7). Actors in the children and youth category also have a working group (i.e. Regional AG and Sozialraum AG) covering but not limited to Görlitzer Park (Interviewee 10, 14).

Other inter-organisational formats allow exchange between dissimilar actors. The practitioners’ round is a closed group, which facilitates a monthly professional exchange between district offices and a number of institutions (Interviewee 4, 11). Unlike the practitioners’ round, the round table Görlitzer Park is open to all; anyone can take part, from local residents to actors in civil society and district offices (Interviewee 11). Indeed, most of the interviewees confirmed that they attended the round table. It takes place every three months and topics are largely related to conflicts concerning the use of the park, including drug use, playgrounds and homelessness (Interviewee 4). The Görlitzer Park working group is another format. It has several subgroups with different themes comprising criminal and judicial measures, operational measures, measures under immigration law, civic measures, social measures and alternative measures (Interviewee 30). The advantage of inter-organisational formats is that they allow potential collaboration. As Interviewee 16 suggested, even though the daily work of his/her organisation has nothing to do with some actors attending the same formats, if there is a need, he/she can easily make contact.

A range of standard social network analysis metrics were measured, including size, diversity, density, centralisation, degree centrality and betweenness centrality. Network level metrics are presented in Table 3.

In terms of size, the Görlitzer Park management network involves 64 actors. There are various ways to analyse diversity. First, actors are grouped into seven different categories based on their activities (see Fig. 2). When looking at the network structure based on the actor category, it is also noteworthy that all actors in the category of safety and order position themselves in the middle, close to one another. In fact, the three actors are well connected to one another as well as with actors in other categories. The actors in the category of coordination and counselling show a similar result. Actors in the other categories have mixed results. In general, there is at least one actor from each category who is located in the middle. This actor is well linked with actors in other categories.

Actors can be divided according to the level as well (see Fig. 3) – from district, city and federal levels and beyond. The majority are active at the district (n=23) and city levels (n=33). Only eight actors are from the federal level and beyond. Interestingly, the network structure shows a tendency for actors at the district level to congregate in the middle, while actors at the city level are more dispersed. Actors at the federal level and beyond (n=8) are rather peripheral, except for actors 11 (Stiftung SPI) and 28 (Joliba e.V.). This indicates that actors at the district level play a rather central role in the management of Görlitzer Park.

Actors can be further divided based on the sector (see Fig. 4). A large number of actors are from the public sector (n=26) and non-profit sector (n=30). Only eight actors are private actors. The division between the public and non-profit sectors is remarkable in terms of the network structure. While some actors are well connected across different sectors, there seems to be a tendency for actors in the same sectors to be better connected. Interestingly, this is not the case for the actors in the private sector. As Fig. 4 shows, they are poorly connected both internally and externally. The only exception is actor 8 (park runner) situated in the middle of the network.

Actors can be divided into central and peripheral actors as well as based on the degree and betweenness centralities. The high degree and betweenness centralities indicate central actors in the network while the reverse shows peripheral actors. Generally speaking, actors located in the middle have high scores both in the degree and betweenness centralities. As shown in Fig. 5, the degree scores are divided into three types, i.e. low, medium and high, to better illustrate the results. The top eight actors (in red; number of connections higher than 23) in terms of degree scores are actors in three categories, i.e. coordination and counselling, safety and order, and health and social issues. Four actors out of eight belong to the latter category showing the high engagement of health and social actors in the park. Among 64 actors, 27 have more than 10 ties (above the average), while 13 have only one tie.

The node size indicates the degree of betweenness centrality; the higher the score, the larger the node is. The actor with the highest betweenness centrality is actor 59 (Senate Department for the Interior, Digitalisation and Sport). This department connects the actors who are otherwise disconnected to the Görlitzer Park management network. Actors with betweenness scores over 100 include seven actors from four categories, i.e. coordination and counselling, safety and order, health and social issues, as well as culture, sport and tourism. Out of 64 actors, 21 have a zero score in betweenness centrality. They are regarded as peripheral actors.

As Fig. 5 shows, actors with high degree scores (dark colour) tend to have high betweenness scores (large size). So for instance, actors 5 (Straßen- und Grünflächenamt) and 7 (police) have high values in degree and betweenness scores, affording them a position in the centre of the Görlitzer Park management network, as their immediate neighbours comprise a diverse mix. However, there are also exceptions, as actor 28 (Joliba e.V.) shows. This actor has the highest value in degree score and the second highest value in betweenness score. Yet a closer look at this actor’s neighbours rather reveals homophily (see Fig. 2) as many of the immediate neighbours comprise actors in the same actor category (i.e. health and social issues).

Density and centralisation were measured in addition to the size, diversity, degree and between centralities. As shown in Table 3, the Görlitzer Park management network is characterised by a low level of density (0.158), i.e. there is low connectivity between actors. Also, the network has a low level of centralisation (0.377), which indicates that actors do not rely on a single central actor.

Size is a crucial factor when it comes to the management of a park, given the limited resources and capacities each actor has. It is impossible for a single entity to achieve a set of goals by working alone. The benefits of having a large network are that common goals can be achieved with synergy effects, and duplication of work can be avoided (Interviewee 30). Yet size also has downsides; for instance, it requires a large coordination effort to ensure the exchange of information between actors: “For this reason, working on the network is often experienced as confusing, ineffective and time-consuming” (Interviewee 30). Also, it is difficult for any actor to know all the others. Indeed, no actor had a complete overview or connections with all other actors. Interviewees were surprised and impressed by the number and range of actors involved. A number of interviewees pointed out the lack of overview in terms of actors and their activities and mentioned that it was sometimes difficult to find the right contact person for certain plans and processes (Interviewee 9, 17). The large network could also lead to slow decision-making and action. Indeed, this was seen as one of the problems of the management of Görlitzer Park (Interviewee 10).

Diversity is another critical factor for the management of the park, as it needs various ideas, perspectives and forms of expertise (Interviewee 6, 15). The diversity of Görlitzer Park’s management network was analysed according to the actor categories, levels and sectors. The result of social network analysis reveals the high diversity of the network, which means more diverse types of contribution and support are readily available. Indeed, the interviewees perceived high diversity as positive and important, as the problems of Görlitzer Park are multidimensional. One of the interviewees used an example to illustrate this: “The police are needed in an emergency case, yet cannot solve the problem alone. It is advantageous that other actors like social organisations are there too” (Interviewee 26).

Others mentioned the difficulty of working with an interdisciplinary group of people as different actors have different interests. This can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts between actors (Interviewee 15). For example, conflicts emerged within the park council: “The park council is diverse; members have different expectations and interests; it is difficult – at least at first – to work with complete strangers constructively” (Interviewee 1). Some interviewees mentioned a further conflict between the police and users of the park, which is related to the issue of racism and racial profiling (Interviewee 2, 6, 22). Similarly, while referring to the example of measures taken by actors beyond the district level for police operations in the park, Interviewee 14 pointed out that their engagement – without consultation with the actors in the neighbourhood – is not always helpful, as they know less about the local situation.

Centrality indicates how important and influential an actor is to the network as a whole. Among several actors, the Straßen- und Grünflächenamt and its park manager have both high degree and betweenness centralities, indicating good connections with similar and dissimilar others. As a central actor, the Straßen- und Grünflächenamt is responsible for maintaining the Görlitzer Park management network (Interviewee 5). Having a park manager responsible for Görlitzer Park was seen positively by interviewees. Interviewee 14 mentioned that as the Straßen- und Grünflächenamt has become increasingly active, communication and information flow between actors has improved. Other central actors according to the centrality score include social actors, i.e. Joliba e.V. and Fixpunkt gGmbH. Actors in the category of health and social issues tend to have contact with one another. Interviewee 6 confirmed that there is a high degree of solidarity among these actors as they try to tackle the causes of the problems together. The police, another central actor, also have an impact on the park through their presence and operations in the park. In addition, the Senate Department for the Interior, Digitalisation and Sport plays a central role in the flow of the network. By organising the Görlitzer Park working group, it connects actors to the network who are otherwise disconnected. Thus, more actors are added to the network.

Central actors have significance for the network, as the network can break down if they are taken out. The network experienced this to some extent due to changes in those responsible (Interviewee 5): “None of the initiators are there anymore. That is why the cooperation has been difficult” (Interviewee 3).

The Görlitzer Park management network is characterised by low density, meaning there is a low level of connectedness. This has consequences regarding the extent and speed at which information is diffused among the actors. In fact, information does not seem to be transmitted efficiently across the network. One interviewee mentioned that while many good things take place within and around the park, in some of which his/her organisation participated as well, they sometimes lose track as they do not get any feedback (Interviewee 17).

The inefficient spread of information is supported by the relatively low level of centralisation of the network. Indeed, if the network were highly centralised, information flow would be more efficient. While some actors are more central than others, the network as a whole is rather decentralised. This is not necessarily disadvantageous though, as the more long-term goals require a more decentralised structure (Prell/Hubacek/Reed 2009: 504). Moreover, it prevents the breakdown of the network in the case of loss of actors.

The research reveals that there is a consensus among actors that the actor network is important for managing Görlitzer Park and should be improved. However, there was disagreement on whether to expand the network or not. While some were keen to improve the network by expanding it (Interviewee 7) and thereby promoting the engagement of civil organisations in particular (Interviewee 2), others preferred to improve communication within the existing network: “The more people are involved, the more difficult it is to find a solution” (Interviewee 4). Regardless of whether or not the network should be expanded, the competence of the park manager was regarded as significant as he/she takes the role of coordinator and mediator.

Interviewees made several suggestions about how to improve communication within the existing network. Even though there has been improvement, there is still room for more. For instance, the degree to which the park council was involved by the district in making decisions was questioned. This may be due to insufficient communication between the Straßen- und Grünflächenamt and members of the park council regarding the role of the park council. The number of members of the council has declined, partly because participants’ expectations differed and/or they did not feel they were taken seriously (Interviewee 1, 3). In addition, the representativeness of members of the park council was questioned (Interviewee 2). Furthermore, it seems that better communication may be necessary. One of the ideas was to make changes to the selection process by introducing a quota before the election for certain groups of the population to ensure the diversity and representativeness of members (Interviewee 2). Moreover, members of the park council should be allowed to communicate in foreign languages (e.g. English) (Interviewee 2).

Another point is that some actors, such as Interviewees 18 and 21, wished they had more connections with actors in the network. Others mentioned that continuity in general and in communication in particular has to be improved. Although it seems basic, regular and focused communication has not always been achieved (Interviewees 3, 6, 8), a situation which was even fuelled by the pandemic. Regarding the park council, continuity could also be improved. Currently, members are re-elected every two years. The alternative would be to re-elect half of them every year to prevent a complete change of members: “Things get lost very quickly and you have to start all over again even though all of this has actually been done before” (Interviewee 1). Moreover, commitment from all sides was mentioned as a factor that should be improved. Interviewee 1 emphasised that the public sector actors should contribute if they want to cooperate with civil society. Also, Interviewee 9 stressed the need for more engagement of actors beyond the district, as some tasks simply cannot be done at district level.

It is important to mention that the above-mentioned suggestions require resources. Interviewees often said that there is a lack of financial and human resources to maintain their network and make contributions. Interviewee 13, for instance, said that many organisations are run on a voluntary basis and so they do not have time. For this reason, Interviewee 2 emphasised the need to incentivise certain actors – often the marginalised population – so that they can actually engage. Moreover, some argued that the district does not have enough resources to make real changes in the park (Interviewee 3). Hence, more resources are necessary (Interviewee 3, 7).

A number of suggestions were made regarding the formats of interaction. The current inter-organisational formats were regarded as beneficial, yet interviewees called for more openness (Interviewee 24). The practitioners’ round was criticised for being closed; although some actors considered themselves as highly relevant, they were not invited (Interviewee 14). Other formats were suggested as well, including a newsletter or website so that actors could have a better overview of each other’s activities (Interviewee 25). Also, information sharing could benefit from a central data storage or cloud which all actors have access to (Interviewee 29). This would allow for more efficient responses if actors need information regarding Görlitzer Park, for instance, for press inquiries.