Terese Rees in her book “Mainstreaming Equality in European Union” (Rees, 1998) describes three approaches towards equal opportunities. Each of these approaches illustrates that there is no common ground in understanding what equal opportunities means, and therefore, in each case it should be specified. The first approach that T. Rees introduces is equal treatment. It promises equal access to work, education, politics for men and women by recognizing them as individuals without differences (Rees, 1998, p. 34). The second one is positive action and discrimination. This approach acknowledges differences between men and women and suggests additional opportunities for women to level up their skills and knowledge to match male standards. It also implies quotas for women in organizations and institutions to balance unfair distribution of positions (Rees, 1998, pp. 35–37). T. Rees concludes that despite both approaches having their advantages neither of them challenges the status quo of power relations. T. Rees contrasts equal treatment and positive action to the third approach – transforming or mainstreaming equality. The third approach recognizes structural inequalities which are caused by androcentrism and aims to change it. (Rees, 1998, p. 28). What are the main advantages of mainstreaming equality and how it can be applied to urban policy?

Public policies in most cases are centered around men’s interests which are perceived as gender-neutral or universal. Neutral nature of policies is caused by the lack of recognition of differences between men and women. In contrast, “the model of EO which underlines mainstreaming policies is based upon the notion of the politics of difference” (Rees, 1998, p. 40). Nevertheless, instead of creating tools for women to fit to male institutions, mainstreaming offers transformational change, and this is one of the main advantages of this approach towards equality. It implies evaluation of all policies and practices, in order to see how gender is considered, if at all, and how it affects men and women. The truth is that gender is everywhere: in merit systems, hiring policies, decision making processes etc. Mainstreaming equality places women’s needs and experiences at the center of policymaking. To make that structural change successfully, the change needs to be long-term. The persistent and lasting nature of the mainstreaming approach (Rees, 1998, p. 40) is the second advantage of it.
I would like to give an example of how the mainstreaming approach is applied to urban public policy. There are several studies that prove cities’ policies and urban planning as androcentric and not gender-neutral (Kern, 2020; Criado-Perez, 2019; Matrix Book Group, 1984). The main reason for this is the strict division between public and private spheres which were consolidated within rapid urbanization and the development of capitalism in the 19th century. (Gyáni, 1994, p. 86). In public consciousness, private life was mainly associated with women and domestic work, the public life - with men and productive work (1994, p. 86). It is still true to a certain extent in many places even today and therefore some cities decided to introduce a transformational change by using gender mainstreaming as an approach to achieve gender equality in urban life.

Vienna became a pioneer in integrating gender mainstreaming policies in urban planning (Vienna Case Study, n.d.). The city has been working on it since the 1990s to analyze how public spaces, residential areas and transportation infrastructures are gendered and what could be changed in urban policy to achieve gender equality. In 2013 Vienna has introduced a manual “Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development” as a strategic document that centers women’s needs and experience in planning urban space (Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development, 2013). One of the sections in their long-term strategy is dedicated to urban gender-sensitive design of playgrounds for children in the 10-13 age group. The study finds that by this age “girls tend to withdraw entirely from parks and public open spaces” (Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development, 2013, p. 80). It happens because most of the playgrounds are designed for ballgames with high fences (cages) which are usually occupied by boys. The intentions of the designers of these typical playgrounds are clearly gender-blind in their efforts to create a universal space. They do not acknowledge the differences and specifics of girls’ and boys’ socialization which shapes their behaviors in open public spaces. Girls are intimidated by closed spaces like ballgame cages, because cages usually have only one exit which can be easily blocked. The other problem is that ballgame cages offer only one scenario of use: playing formal games such as football, volleyball, or basketball. If the cage is occupied by boys playing a ballgame there is no space for other activities and for other groups. What was done in Vienna to address gender inequality in playground use? A good example of changes is the redesign of Einsiedlerpark in the fifth district (Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development, 2013, p. 84). The fences of the cage were left only where it was necessary, so the playground has more exits and entrances. The designers made two playfields: one for formal ballgames with pitch markings and other for free activities. These two playfields were partially separated by long pedestal with a roof which was designed for sitting, dancing, observing and hiding from the rain and snow (Vienna Case Study, n.d.). As a result, the playground has become more open, offering more space and scenarios for girls to use it. By placing girls’ needs in the center, the design of playgrounds was partially reinvented. This example shows how urban policy could be transformed by implementing structural change, which aims to shift power relations within public spaces. This manual is not about quick decisions, but about introducing gender mainstreaming into urban policies on the city level as a long-term strategy. The manual aims to make women and girls’ access to public spaces a priority for city development.


The example of playgrounds shows the unbalanced nature of urban design and the need for structural transformation in urban public policies. Androcentric cities limit women and girls’ access to public spaces. By applying gender mainstreaming to urban policies, the city aims to re-think the core structural problem – the gendered division of private and public life. Mainstreaming approach aspires to make women and girls feel that they belong to public space.

Criado-Perez, C. (2019). Invisible women: Exposing data bias in a world designed for men. Chatto & Windus.
Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning and Urban Development. (2013). Urban Development Vienna,.
Gyáni, G. (1994). Uses and Misuses of Public Space in Budapest: 1873-1914. In Budapest and New York: Studies in metropolitan transformation, 1870-1930 (pp. 85–107). Russell Sage.
Kern, L. (2020). Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World. Verso.
Matrix Book Group. (1984). Making Space: Women and the Man-Made Environment. Pluto press limited.
Rees, T. L. (1998). Mainstreaming equality in the European Union: Education, training and labour market policies. Routledge.
Vienna Case Study. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2024, from https://www.makespaceforgirls.co.uk/case-studies/vienna [accessed 10.02.2024]