The Healing Power of Home Beautification in Displacement

Dr. Devora Neumark and Stephanie Acker

University of Essex, MA in Refugee Care

November 20, 2024

Casa Pintada used rehabilitation projects to build trust among neighbors helping to bridge divides between host communities and refugees. Painted staircase, Colombia.

Photo: Blumont Group, 2022

Summary

This interactive seminar at the University of Essex explored the healing power of home beautification in contexts of forced displacement, arguing that aesthetics in the built environment play a vital role in restoring identity, dignity, and belonging. Drawing on the framework of Adversity-Activated Development (AAD) introduced by Professor Dr. Monica Luci in a previous session, psychosocial theory, and lived experiences across multiple displacement settings, the presentation reframed beautification as a catalyst for post-traumatic growth rather than superficial luxury. The seminar included group activities where participants reflected on the emotional and symbolic significance of home, examined case studies demonstrating how aesthetic engagement fosters innovation in coping (Bilal’s container gardening), reclaims agency (Wagemann’s observations of personalised shelters in Peru), shifts perspectives (Labiba’s collective flower care), and strengthens social connection (Casa Pintada in Colombia, Jeddah Camp rehabilitation in Iraq). Participants applied AAD principles to a fictitious case study, considering interventions that respect culture, foster resilience, and work within environmental constraints. The seminar addressed practical and ethical considerations including cultural sensitivity, co-design, resource adaptability, and the misconception that aesthetics are secondary to survival needs, arguing instead that aesthetics sustains the human spirit as food nourishes the body. Ultimately, it called on practitioners to integrate aesthetics into refugee care as essential to holistic, trauma-informed support.

Key Takeaways

Beautification restores identity and belonging after the loss of home, which is not merely a physical structure, but a psychosocial anchor tied to safety, memory, and identity. Forced displacement fractures this foundation, often leading to depression, helplessness, and a disrupted sense of self. Acts of beautification allow displaced individuals to intentionally reshape space, restoring autonomy, dignity, and a renewed sense of belonging even in temporary or constrained environments.

Adversity-Activated Development (AAD) reframes beautification as a catalyst for post-traumatic growth rather than superficial luxury. AAD’s five core components - innovation in coping mechanisms, reclaiming identity and agency, shifting perspective, empathy and social connection, and resilience-building - provide a framework for understanding how aesthetic engagement helps individuals “bounce forward” rather than merely “bounce back.” Beautification transforms adversity into resilience-building opportunities through creative adaptation to new realities.

Individual acts of beautification have measurable therapeutic and psychological effects demonstrated through Palestinian refugee camp case studies. Bilal’s gardening illustrates innovation in coping by adapting limited resources into self-expression and control. Wagemann’s observations of brightly painted shelters in Peru show reclaiming identity and agency as families personalise temporary homes despite knowing they face eviction. Labiba’s collective flower care embodies shifting perspective by focusing on what can be nurtured rather than what is lacking, transforming displacement into a space of potential and growth.

Collective beautification strengthens empathy, social capital, and integration through shared aesthetic projects. Casa Pintada in Colombia demonstrates how Venezuelan refugees working together to paint homes builds both bonding social capital within displaced communities and bridging social capital with host communities. The Jeddah Camp Cash-for-Work rehabilitation programme in Iraq equipped predominantly female-headed households with repair skills, improving shelter safety and aesthetics while creating income, empowerment, and renewed sense of capability, illustrating how beautification fosters resilience-building and collective strength.

Aesthetics must be integrated ethically and holistically into refugee care, not treated as secondary to food and shelter but recognised as crucial to dignity and psychological wellbeing. Just as food nourishes the body and shelter protects it, aesthetics sustains the human spirit, offering identity, dignity, and psychological wellbeing. Implementation must prioritise cultural sensitivity through co-design with communities, adaptability within resource constraints by supporting existing community-led efforts, and recognition that beautification complements rather than competes with other humanitarian aid, supporting holistic wellbeing in displacement contexts.

Implications for Practitioners

Integrate beautification into psychosocial and trauma-support programming: Humanitarian practitioners and service providers should incorporate beautification into psychosocial and trauma-support programming as a legitimate therapeutic tool rather than treating aesthetic engagement as optional. Structure opportunities for gardening, decoration, and personalisation into community programming to support post-traumatic growth and resilience in line with Adversity-Activated Development (AAD), enabling individuals to “bounce forward” through innovation in coping, reclaiming agency, and shifting perspective.
Expand trauma-informed care models to include environmental and aesthetic dimensions: Mental health professionals should recognise that aesthetics sustains the human spirit just as food nourishes the body and shelter protects it. Encourage clients to actively shape and personalise their physical surroundings to reinforce agency, support identity reconstruction, and help shift focus from loss towards creative adaptation and growth, integrating beautification as a fundamental component of holistic wellbeing rather than a secondary consideration.
Design shelters with built-in flexibility for modification and co-creation: Architects, planners, and shelter designers should move beyond purely functional design by incorporating adaptable surfaces, communal areas for collective projects, and policy provisions that permit aesthetic modification without bureaucratic barriers. Recognising that displaced individuals may inhabit supposedly temporary shelters for extended periods, design must allow residents to modify, decorate, and co-create their spaces to maintain identity and dignity over time.
Revise funding criteria to recognise aesthetics as integral to dignity and wellbeing: Policymakers and donors should expand funding criteria and service guidelines to acknowledge aesthetics as necessary to dignity, cultural participation, and psychosocial wellbeing rather than framing it as luxury or non-essential. Policies should allow residents greater autonomy in modifying their spaces and support small-scale, community-led beautification initiatives as part of holistic refugee care, recognising that many such efforts are already occurring and require enabling rather than restricting.
Adopt participatory, culturally sensitive approaches through co-design: Host governments and implementing partners should prioritise co-design projects with displaced communities to avoid imposing external standards of beauty, ensure cultural relevance, and strengthen both bonding social capital within refugee communities and bridging social capital with host populations. Listen to and engage with refugees to ensure beautification reflects their cultural values and preferences, maintaining respect and empowerment while working adaptably within resource constraints through resourcefulness and creativity.