Criticality assessment

The goal of this work package was to assess the cascading effects of COVID-19-related disruptions on the livelihoods of marginalized groups, with a particular focus on the role of mobility restrictions and their impact on critical infrastructures to answer the research question:

What are the indirect effects of disruptions of infrastructure and services resulting from Covid-19 outbreak on the livelihoods of marginalized households before, during and after the pandemic?

The cascading effects model served as the foundation for this analysis, highlighting how disruptions in one sector can lead to adverse consequences across interconnected systems. By tracing these disruptions, we aimed to understand how vulnerabilities were amplified, livelihoods were affected, and social inequalities were exacerbated.

Our research in Germany focused on examining the interdependencies between mobility and critical infrastructure sectors, specifically healthcare, food and nutrition, social work, education, and childcare. These sectors were selected due to their direct impact on daily life and their reliance on physical accessibility, distinguishing them from other critical infrastructures such as water or electricity. Since marginalized communities often have fewer resources and alternative options, disruptions in these sectors were particularly detrimental, further deepening existing inequalities.

Methodology

To assess the systemic vulnerabilities caused by COVID-19-related mobility restrictions, we adopted a qualitative research approach combining literature research, expert interviews, cascading effects development, and validation workshops.

1. Literature Review and Expert Interviews

Our analysis began with a comprehensive literature review to understand existing research on the cascading effects of critical infrastructure disruptions and their disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. To complement these findings, we conducted qualitative expert interviews with professionals across key sectors, including:

• Public transport operators to assess the extent of mobility disruptions and their impact on different population groups
• Public health officials to understand the pandemic's uneven impact on access to healthcare
• Social workers from various fields to gain insights into the challenges faced by marginalized communities, including homeless individuals, people with disabilities, low-income groups, migrants, and elderly individuals

These interviews provided firsthand perspectives on the consequences of pandemic-related restrictions, particularly for individuals reliant on public services.

2. Development of the Cascading Effects Framework

Building on insights from the literature review and expert interviews, we developed a cascading effects framework to visualize and analyze the complex interdependencies between mobility disruptions and critical infrastructure sectors. The framework identifies:

• The initial dependency of each sector on public transport, analyzing how mobility restrictions directly affected infrastructure functionality.
• The ripple effects on employees and service users, illustrating how disrupted transport systems impacted individuals’ ability to work and access essential services.
• Interdependencies between sectors, showing how disruptions in one area (e.g., school closures) led to broader consequences in other sectors (e.g., childcare or food security).

This model was refined iteratively to ensure it accurately captured the multi-layered vulnerabilities that emerged during the pandemic.

3. Validation Process

To validate and refine the cascading effects framework, we conducted expert consultations in the Ruhr region, Germany, as well as in-person workshops in São Paulo, Brazil, and Cape Town, South Africa. These sessions aimed to assess sectoral dependencies, spatial hotspots of vulnerability, and the broader cascading effects of mobility disruptions.

In São Paulo and Cape Town, we held in-person workshops, where experts collaboratively identified sectoral interdependencies, evaluating how disruptions in mobility affected access to essential services such as healthcare, food provision, and education. Each workshop brought together approximately ten experts from practice, administration, academia, and local NGOs, ensuring diverse perspectives and a comprehensive understanding of systemic dependencies.

In Dortmund, due to scheduling challenges and time constraints of the experts, we opted for a digital validation process instead of an in-person workshop. Experts were provided with a two-week timeframe to review and refine the cascading effect chains on a Miro board, where they could comment, suggest modifications, and add missing interdependencies. Additionally, they received a survey designed to capture potential gaps, missing interconnections, and sectoral dependencies that might not have been fully addressed.

This flexible, asynchronous approach allowed for broader expert participation, ensuring valuable input despite scheduling difficulties. The insights gathered through the digital consultation and surveys in Dortmund were integrated alongside findings from the in-person workshops in São Paulo and Cape Town, resulting in a comprehensive and well-rounded validation of the cascading effects model.

Summary of Results

Cascading Effects Across Critical Infrastructure Sectors

The study revealed that disruptions in critical infrastructure sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic had profound cascading effects, particularly for marginalized communities. While all individuals experienced challenges, those with fewer resources faced disproportionate hardships due to limited alternatives and safety nets. Key findings across the sectors include:

• Healthcare: Limited access to medical facilities and resources resulted in delayed treatments and worsened health conditions among marginalized populations. While non-marginalized individuals were also affected, their greater access to private transportation and financial resources helped mitigate some of the adverse effects.
• Food and Nutrition: Disruptions in supply chains and the closure of food distribution centers significantly impacted access to nutritious food. This exacerbated malnutrition and deepened cycles of food insecurity.
• Social Work: The shutdown of social work infrastructure, including advice centers and community resources, led to increased social and economic disparities. Vulnerable individuals lost access to crucial support services, making it harder to navigate financial and social challenges.
• Education: School closures and remote learning challenges disproportionately affected marginalized students, particularly those from migrant backgrounds, who faced language barriers and a lack of digital learning tools. These disruptions widened existing educational inequalities, limiting future opportunities.
• Childcare: The closure of childcare facilities placed additional burdens on caregivers, particularly single parents and low-income families, disrupting employment and financial stability. Meanwhile, wealthier households were more likely to access private childcare options or work remotely, easing the impact.

Impact on Critical Infrastructure Workers

Beyond the effects on service users, the study also examined the consequences for staff working within these sectors:

• Increased commuting costs and travel times due to reduced public transport availability led to financial strain and work-life imbalances.
• Public transport disruptions forced many workers, especially those in social work and healthcare, to find alternative, often more expensive or time-consuming, commuting options.
• Workforce shortages were exacerbated by COVID-19 exposure risks, resulting in increased workloads, heightened stress, and mental health challenges among critical infrastructure employees.

Case Study Insights: Ruhr

While cascading effects were observed across all three study areas, some challenges were location-specific due to regional conditions. In the Ruhr region, two key findings stood out:

• Education and Social Services: School closures had a disproportionate impact on students from migrant backgrounds, as language barriers made remote learning more difficult. Additionally, the closure of social facilities deprived vulnerable individuals of essential support networks, increasing psychological stress and economic hardship. The social work sector struggled to meet rising demands for mental health support, further straining resources.
• Mobility and Self-Restriction: Even after lockdown measures were lifted, fear of infection discouraged many individuals from returning to public transport, limiting their ability to access healthcare, social services, and employment. This voluntary self-restriction exacerbated pre-existing inequalities, as those without private transport remained excluded from essential services.

Overall, the findings highlight how mobility restrictions triggered cascading effects across multiple sectors, reinforcing structural inequalities. These insights provide a foundation for further research and policy recommendations aimed at building more resilient and inclusive infrastructure systems.