In conclusion, bullying can be connected to physical environment only partially. There are a number of actors, which can decrease or increase the symptoms (e.g., aggression, anxiety) of bullying. However, many types of bullying still remain regardless of the spatial design configuration. Similarly to Fennelly’s statement about CPTED, spatial design can not solve all the problems of bullying, however, it should make the spaces better, rather than increasing the risk of misconduct. The goal of spatial design in bullying situation should be to lower the risks and increase positive feelings.
During the research it became evident that it is not possible to solve or remove bullying from school environments. Every new solution that is created induces new problems. The reason is that there are too many different forms of bullying.
…show more content…
There is a strong body of scientific evidence that highlight multiple beneficial outcomes of using restorative effects in man-made environments.
Restorative effects of biophilic design can have large role in future school environments, by changing the usual stressful spaces into stress inducing places. Furthermore, the spaces could be undemanding because of the underlaid mental influence. People do not have to know they are in need for relaxation they just are in a space that has that kind of effect on them, which in turn can reduce tensions and negative thoughts. Biophilic environments can have that influence on us.
The creation of biophilic environments could be complicated, because biophilic design also expects the use of natural materials. However, today’s health regulations for schools in Estonia demand the use of durable and easily washable materials in schools interiors (Tervisekaitsenõuded koolidele, 2013). Fortunately, large amount of designers and researchers are dealing with developing new close to natural materials that can withstand excessive