Rethinking Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: The Role of Aesthetics in Shelter and Settlement Response

Dr. Devora Neumark and Stephanie Acker

Migration Working Group

November 19, 2024

Current humanitarian frameworks prioritize functionality, often at the expense of aesthetic elements that support mental health, cultural identity, and resilience. Standard T-Shelters at Al Azraq Refugee Camp, Jordan.

Photo: MIT Future Heritage Lab, 2021

Summary

This presentation to the Migration Working Group discussed Dr. Devora Neumark and Stephanie Acker’s working paper “Rethinking Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: The Role of Aesthetics in Refugee Shelter and Settlements Response,” integrating recent findings from neuroscience including work by psychiatrists Dr. Curt Thompson and Dr. Monica Luci that were not included in the original publication. The presentation examined how Maslow’s categorisation of “basic needs” has led humanitarian shelter projects to prioritise functionality and cost at the expense of elements that nurture mental health, cultural identity, and community resilience, resulting in bare, anonymous, standardised shelters. Drawing on mixed-methods research including Dr. Neumark’s research-creation, Stephanie Acker’s desk research analysing nearly 100 published articles, and community-driven dialogues in West Bank refugee camps, the presentation critiqued three key shortcomings of Maslow’s framework: its static linear nature fails to reflect fluid prolonged displacement realities (average 17-year camp stays), its individualistic focus clashes with collective refugee community dynamics, and its universal framing overlooks culturally specific needs. Case studies from displaced communities in the West Bank, Peru, Colombia, and Iraq demonstrated that beautification improves mental health by grounding individuals in the present moment and reducing anticipatory anxiety, supports cultural identity and self-expression through intentional space modification, and fosters community resilience through collective initiatives like Casa Pintada and the Jeddah Camp Cash-for-Work program. Ultimately, the presentation called for aesthetics to be recognised as a fundamental human right aligned with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Key Takeaways

Humanitarian shelter design, influenced by Maslow’s framework, prioritises cost and functionality over dignity and identity, resulting in what scholars call “bare shelter”: anonymous and standardised structures. Tom Scott-Smith documents an architect proclaiming that refugee response requires “a shelter that meets basic needs; a shelter that is adaptable and easy to transport; a shelter that, above all, is inexpensive; it’s not rocket science.” This reductionist approach creates a fundamental contradiction: shelters designed as temporary emergency solutions become long-term homes averaging 17 years, yet their static, one-size-fits-all design cannot accommodate the evolving collective and culturally specific needs that emerge over protracted displacement.

Neuroscientific studies on neuroaesthetics show that environments incorporating beauty through elements like colour or cultural symbols can alleviate stress, improve mood, and foster a sense of belonging. Engaging in physical tasks like planting flowers or arranging a home helps ground individuals in the present moment, reducing anticipatory anxiety and offering reprieve from fear about the future or ruminations on the past. Palestinian refugees in Al-Azza camp describe how caring for flowers “occupies us positively” and creates “peace and stability.” This matters because people envision the future based on their past and present; prolonged anxiety or dwelling on unsafe memories limits the ability to imagine improvement, which is key to recovery in displacement.

Physical objects carried from lost homes serve as tangible bridges across generations, enabling what Marianne Hirsch terms postmemory: the transmission of cultural trauma and identity to those who never experienced the original displacement. Abla Abdel Hamid’s mother brought soil from Beit Jibrin in 1948; Abla now plants roses in that soil and tends a prickly pear tree from the village, stating “I cannot do without it; it remains in my memory every day.” Families in Peru transformed temporary post-earthquake shelters with “bright colours, designed fences, decorative elements, and familiar materials” despite knowing they faced eviction, showing these homes were “more than mere shelters” even in acknowledged temporariness.

The Cash-for-Work tent rehabilitation programme in Jeddah Camp, Iraq, demonstrates how aesthetic interventions can simultaneously address multiple humanitarian objectives. Tunnel tents built in 2016 received no maintenance until a 2019 programme engaged primarily female heads of households through focus groups to learn tent repair, improving both perception of safety and aesthetics while empowering women, creating jobs, and teaching new skills. As researchers observed, “one would assume that in conditions of conflict and crisis, art is secondary. What we witnessed at the camp is that creative expression is as necessary as any other primary commodity,” directly challenging Maslow’s hierarchy by proving aesthetics functions as fundamental infrastructure rather than optional enhancement.

Framing aesthetics as a fundamental human right, protected under Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to participate in cultural life), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the Global Compact on Refugees, shifts shelter design from survival minimums to dignity-centred environments emphasising cultural participation, self-determination, and identity preservation. This rights-based approach counters common objections about resource scarcity, cultural relativism, or signalling permanence by recognising that many beautification efforts are already low-cost, community-driven, and culturally specific. The question is not whether aesthetics should be included, but whether humanitarian actors will support refugees’ existing efforts to create beauty or continue restricting personalisation through policies that prioritise standardisation over agency.

Implications for Practitioners

Integrate aesthetics into humanitarian shelter programming from the outset: Humanitarian shelter actors and camp coordinators should recognise aesthetics as integral to mental health, agency, and resilience rather than treating beautification as secondary to “basic needs.” Small investments in personalisation, gardening, colour, and spatial flexibility can ground individuals in the present moment, reduce anticipatory anxiety, and support trauma recovery by shifting focus from “what has been done to me” to “what I can do” (Brison).
Design shelters that are adaptable and culturally flexible: Architects and urban planners should move beyond purely standardised shelter models to create structures that allow residents to modify, decorate, and personalise their spaces in ways that reflect cultural practices and collective living patterns. Recognising that refugees live in supposedly “temporary” shelters for an average of 17 years, shelter design must accommodate evolving needs over protracted displacement rather than prioritising only cost and transportability.
Facilitate collective beautification initiatives that build social cohesion: Refugee response NGOs and community-based organisations should support community-led projects such as Casa Pintada in Colombia or the Jeddah Camp Cash-for-Work tent rehabilitation programme in Iraq, which demonstrate how aesthetic collaboration simultaneously addresses multiple objectives including safety improvements, skills development, income generation, empowerment of marginalised groups like female-headed households, and strengthening of social capital and informal support networks.
Revise funding and evaluation frameworks to include dignity and cultural expression: Policymakers and donors should expand evaluation criteria beyond survival metrics to include psychosocial and identity-based outcomes such as cultural participation, self-determination, and sense of belonging. Recognise aesthetics, dignity, and cultural expression as legitimate components of wellbeing rather than “non-essential” luxuries, countering objections about resource scarcity by noting that many beautification efforts are already low-cost and community driven.
Adopt a rights-based approach that frames aesthetics as fundamental: International agencies and host governments should recognise aesthetics as integral to dignity and resilience under Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the Global Compact on Refugees. Supporting residents’ ability to personalise and beautify spaces enhances agency and long-term stability rather than fostering dependency, reframing shelter policy from minimal survival towards environments that sustain identity, cultural memory, and wellbeing.