Tactical Urbanism: Reclaiming the Right to Use Public Spaces in Thessaloniki, Greece

  • Margarita AngelidouEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)


During the past four decades, there has been an increasing body of knowledge examining the positive effects of pedestrian mobility on individual health, sustainable development and social inclusion. In parallel, tactical urbanism, referring to an approach to neighborhood building using short-term, low-cost, and scalable interventions and policies has been manifested since 2010 an emergent trend in large cities across the world. Tactical urbanism is ‘tactical’ because it is driven by deliberate and organized processes; it is a form of ‘urbanism’ because it assigns uses to the urban space. Inspired by this trend, the purpose of this paper is to explore the processes and undertakings behind the tactical urbanism activities of the “Union for the Rights of Pedestrians” (PRU), a Non-Governmental-Organisation (NGO) in Thessaloniki. The method followed includes the following steps: (i). Literature review about the role of tactical urbanism and pedestrian mobility for urban development (ii). Case study analysis by means of five structured interviews with members of the PRU that organize and participate in the organisation’s tactical urbanism initiatives, and (iii). Development of conclusions and policy recommendations for improving the effectiveness of tactical urbanism in Thessaloniki.


Urban development Community Accessibility Temporary Land use 


  1. 1.
    Harvey, D.: The right to the city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 27(4), 939–941 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pfeifer, L.: The Planner’s Guide to Tactical Urbanism (2013).
  3. 3.
    Ampatzidou, C., et al.: The Hackable City: A Research Manifesto and Design Toolkit. Knowledge Mile (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kinder, K.: DIY Detroit: Making Do in a City Without Services. University of Minnesota Press (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lydon, M., Garcia, A.: A Tactical Urbanism. Short-term action for Long-term Change. Tactical Urbanism. Island Press, Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nielson, C.: Engineering interim design and tactical urbanism: from cost-effective, quick improvements to powerful public outreach tools. Inst. Transp. Eng. ITE J. 85(4), 18 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wortham-Galvin, B.D.: An anthropology of urbanism: how people make places (and what designers and planners might learn from it). Footprint 7(2), 21–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bishop, P., Lesley, W.: The Temporary City. Routledge, London (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Avdoulos, E.: The pop up city in a time of crisis. In: Ferro, L., et al. (eds.) Moving Cities – Contested Views on Urban Life. Springer VS, Wiesbaden (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Litman, T.: Transportation and public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 34, 217–233 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Talen, E., Koschinsky, J.: The walkable neighborhood: a literature review. Int. J. Sustain. Land Use Urban Plann. (IJSLUP) 1(1), 42–63 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobsen, P.L.: Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Inj. Prev. 9(3), 205–209 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grabow, M.L., et al.: Air quality and exercise-related health benefits from reduced car travel in the midwestern United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 120(1), 68 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sciara, G., Handy, S., Boarnet, M.: Policy brief on the impacts of pedestrian strategies based on a review of the empirical literature. Senate Bill 375-Research on impacts of transportation and land use-related policies (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boarnet, M.G., Greenwald, M., McMillan, T.E.: Walking, urban design, and health: toward a cost-benefit analysis framework. J. Plann. Educ. Res. 27(3), 341–358 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cavill, N., et al.: Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: a systematic review. Transp. Policy 15(5), 291–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mueller, N., et al.: Health impact assessment of active transportation: a systematic review. Prev. Med. 76, 103–114 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cho, G.-H., Rodriguez, D.: Location or design? Associations between neighbourhood location, built environment and walking. Urban Stud. 52(8), 1434–1453 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Middleton, J.: Walking in the city: the geographies of everyday pedestrian practices. Geogr. Compass 5(2), 90–105 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miles, M., Huberman, M., Saldaña, J.: Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Incorporated, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations