COVID-19 responses restricted abilities and aspirations for mobility and migration: insights from diverse cities in four continents

The study investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced individual mobility and migration decisions among diverse urban populations. Building on macro-level evidence of disrupted international and internal migration, the authors apply the aspiration-ability framework to identify mechanisms by which pandemic responses affected decisions to move or stay. The research asks how (1) barriers to movement (lockdowns, border closures), (2) altered economic and social abilities, and (3) changing aspirations and risk perceptions interacted to shape migration outcomes for internal and international migrants and non-migrants. The work situates these questions within broader concerns about migrant vulnerabilities, biosecurity framings, and precarity of place, emphasizing the importance of both structural contexts and individual agency during the pandemic.

Evidence shows that COVID-19 significantly altered global mobility: UN DESA estimated the growth in the stock of international migrants by mid-2020 was reduced by about two million (a 27% decline from expected growth). Lockdowns, travel bans, and movement controls disrupted internal migration and changed life-course transitions. The biosecurity framing of public health intensified stigma toward migrants and exacerbated pre-existing social inequalities, particularly in informal settlements and precarious sectors (healthcare, social care, hospitality, food industry). Migrants often faced higher exposure risks, limited healthcare access, and exclusion from social protection. Prior crises (e.g., the Asian economic crisis) showed how downturns trigger return migration and reshape urban–rural dynamics. Emerging pandemic evidence documented forced immobility, stranded workers, and differentiated impacts by status (regular/irregular), sector, and protection levels. The aspiration-ability framework literature highlights how barriers, capabilities, and aspirations co-evolve; pandemics may reduce abilities and thus capacities to aspire. Ambivalence and re-routing in migration projects are common, with digitalization potentially substituting some mobility needs. The authors position COVID-19 as amplifying precarity of place and altering perceived physical dangers (biosecurity risks) within migration decision-making.

Design: Comparative qualitative study using the aspiration-ability framework to explore mobility decisions during COVID-19 across six cities on four continents: Accra (Ghana), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Brussels (Belgium), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Maputo (Mozambique), Worcester (USA). Sampling: Maximum variation sampling initiated in 2019 to capture diversity in socio-economic characteristics and migration experiences; re-contacted consenting participants during 2020. Participants: 47 individuals (international migrants, internal migrants, and non-migrants) aged 18–85, with migrants having 1–5 years residence in the city (aligning with UN long-term migration definition). Internal migrants were excluded in Amsterdam and Brussels due to smaller rural–urban differences. Data collection: Semi-structured interviews conducted remotely (video/phone) May–July 2020; interviews recorded, transcribed, translated into English. Analysis: Hybrid deductive–inductive thematic coding using QDA Miner (Lite) with a collaboratively developed codebook. Ethics: Approved by University of Exeter Geography Ethics Committee (eCLESGeo000056) and relevant institutional IRBs; informed written consent obtained. Context during fieldwork: All sites experienced significant travel restrictions; social protection varied—income support present in Belgium, the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent the US; little to none in Ghana, Bangladesh, and Mozambique. Public health measures included school closures, bans on public events, limits on gatherings, and recommendations/requirements to stay at home and restrict public transport (varying by site). Sample characteristics: Included varied education and income levels within each migration category. High-income international migrants (n=4) included doctoral students and a political consultant; low-income international migrants (n=10) were largely well-educated with diverse occupations (e.g., cook, bouncer, trader, case manager, students). Internal migrants (high-income n=8; low-income n=8) spanned employment statuses and education levels; non-migrants (high-income n=7; low-income n=10) included employed and unemployed individuals across the six cities.

- Three mechanisms shaped mobility decisions during COVID-19 across all sites: (1) barriers to movement, (2) curtailed abilities to move, and (3) altered aspirations for mobility. Common processes included heightened perceived risks, reduced abilities, and reconfigured plans to stay/move. - Barriers to movement: Participants cited (a) direct restrictions from lockdown policies and border closures, (b) fear of infection and biosecurity considerations, and (c) obligations to protect family members or comply with household expectations. These barriers disrupted multi-sited arrangements (e.g., inability to travel for business, to attend funerals, to visit family for holidays, or to access transnational healthcare). - Abilities to move: Widespread immobility resulted. Higher-income international migrants emphasized constrained agency and uncertainty (rather than financial hardship). Lower-income internal migrants experienced material constraints and economic hardship, sometimes supporting stranded family members and facing severe livelihood impacts. Low-income non-migrants reported diminished means to pursue desired moves; high-income non-migrants mainly adjusted travel and leisure. - Aspirations to move: Many higher-income international migrants aspired to remain in place during the pandemic, postponing moves until risks and restrictions eased. Lower-income international migrants generally wished to stay but desired temporary family visits when feasible. Lower-income internal migrants often aspired to relocate for economic opportunities or to reduce isolation. New destination preferences emerged based on perceived health safety (countries/areas with stronger biosecurity) and greener, less dense locations domestically. - Socio-economic differentiation (approximate subgroup sizes): high-income international migrants (n=4) had economic ability but restricted choice; low-income international migrants (n=10) faced travel restrictions impacting family life; high-income internal migrants (n=8) reported stress/loss of work/clients; low-income internal migrants (n=8) faced high stress and challenging economic situations; high-income non-migrants (n=7) had privilege and choice to stay/move; low-income non-migrants (n=10) desired relocation but lacked capacity. - Overall, high-income respondents maintained livelihood security and aspired to stay; low-income respondents across categories experienced economic precarity, stress, and stronger desires to move contingent on opportunities. The pandemic intensified precarity of place, disrupted translocal ties, and reframed mobility as a health risk.

Findings demonstrate that pandemic-era migration decision-making was shaped by intersecting constraints and agency within structural contexts. Lockdowns, border closures, and fears of infection (biosecurity as a subset of perceived physical dangers) curtailed mobility options and altered aspirations. While high-income groups retained economic security and framed constraints as reduced agency and choice, low-income groups experienced heightened livelihood precarity and involuntary immobility. Migrants, regardless of income, faced exacerbated vulnerabilities relative to non-migrants due to administrative status issues, weaker local support networks, and transnational obligations. The aspiration–ability framework elucidates how reduced abilities lead to reconfigured or postponed migration projects and recalibrated aspirations (e.g., preferences for ‘safer’ destinations or greener domestic areas). These dynamics likely contributed to observed macro-level declines in migration growth and shifts in internal mobility. The results underscore the role of structural inequalities and policy contexts (e.g., social protection availability) in shaping resilience and recovery trajectories for urban populations.

Using comparative qualitative evidence from six global cities, the study shows that COVID-19 responses restricted abilities and reshaped aspirations for mobility, producing widespread immobility and reconfigurations of migration projects. Three mechanisms—mobility barriers, curtailed abilities, and altered aspirations—operated across contexts and social strata but had unequal impacts: high-income respondents largely sustained livelihoods and chose to stay, while low-income groups faced intensified precarity and constrained options. The pandemic reframed mobility as a biosecurity risk and disrupted multi-sited lives, potentially signaling structural changes in perceptions of security and movement. For recovery, policies should recognize the centrality of migrants (including low-paid workers) to urban economies and support social and economic integration to stabilize aspirations and ensure skills availability. Future research should track the durability of these changes, the long-term impacts on migration systems (including border technologies and labor markets), and differential outcomes across diverse migrant statuses and urban settings.

- Qualitative design with a small, purposive sample (n=47) across six cities limits generalizability. - Data capture a specific period (mid-2020) with evolving pandemic policies and epidemiological conditions, constraining assessment of longer-term effects. - Remote interviewing and reliance on self-reported perceptions may introduce response and selection biases. - Contextual heterogeneity (varying social protection and restriction regimes) complicates cross-site comparability beyond thematic mechanisms. - The study acknowledges that only long-term observation can determine whether observed changes are temporary or indicative of deeper social transformations.