Application of Edward Hall's Proxemics Model in Analyzing Socio-Spatial Interactions: A Case Study of Naqsh-e Jahan Square, Isfahan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Shahid Ashrafi Esfahani University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Ashrafi Esfahani University, Isfahan

10.22034/jspr.2026.2072143.1167
Abstract
Introduction
Public spaces are key venues for social gatherings, participation, and collective expression, playing a crucial role in fostering collective identity and enhancing social well-being (El-Bardisy, 2024: 3). They also provide a context for analyzing human behavior through interpersonal spacing, or proxemics, which classifies distances into four zones: intimate (0–0.45 m), personal (0.45–1.2 m), social (1.2–3.6 m), and public (>3.6 m) (Hall, 1966). Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan, Iran, is one of the most prominent historical public spaces in the country, hosting both locals and tourists and offering a unique setting for studying socio-spatial interactions. Previous studies have primarily focused on the historical, architectural, and physical aspects of the square, while micro-scale analyses of user interactions and interpersonal spacing patterns remain limited (Babazadeh Asbagh, 2024: 3–8; Radahmadi et al., 1399: 5–12). This study aims to address this gap by investigating two primary questions: 1) What are the spatial patterns and interpersonal distances in Naqsh-e Jahan Square according to Hall’s proxemics model? 2) How do these patterns vary across morning, afternoon, and night periods? Understanding these patterns is essential to inform user-centered design and management, improve social interactions, and support sustainable tourism in historical urban spaces.
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in Edward Hall’s proxemics theory, which highlights the role of interpersonal distances in regulating social behavior (Hall, 1966). The theory has been extended to urban public spaces, where environmental and physical conditions, alongside cultural norms, influence behavior. Complementary concepts such as territoriality—primary (fixed), secondary (temporary), and public (open)—explain how users create informal boundaries through spatial positioning and clustering. Fixed features such as pathways, fountains, and iwans structure movement and spatial organization, while semi-fixed elements like seating areas, furniture, and shading regulate density, proximity, and social interaction. In Naqsh-e Jahan Square, the convergence of local cultural norms and tourism-driven dynamics requires an adapted proxemics framework that considers lighting, shading, crowd density, and temporal fluctuations. This augmented approach demonstrates that interpersonal distances result from the interaction between social norms and environmental affordances, positioning public spaces as “living behavioral models” in which user feedback informs iterative spatial design and management.
Methodology
A mixed–methods approach was employed to examine interpersonal spacing and user behavior in Naqsh-e Jahan Square. The study population included tourists, local residents, families, couples, and solitary users. Data collection occurred in June 2025 over three distinct day types—a weekday, a near-holiday day, and a holiday—across three time slots each day (morning 9:00–12:00, afternoon 16:00–19:00, and night 20:00–23:00), producing nine observational sessions in total. Key observation points included the central pool edges, the area in front of Ali Qapu Palace, the northern, eastern, and western platforms, the mosque entrances, and the iwans. A systematic, non-intrusive observation method ensured the natural behavior of users. An observation checklist captured variables such as time, location, social composition, dominant activity (sitting, standing, wandering, eating, cycling, vending, etc.), interpersonal distance (coded per Hall’s four zones), interaction type, and environmental conditions, including crowd density. Distances were estimated using the square’s flooring units (~50 cm each). In total, 380 social groups and individuals were recorded. Behavioral maps were created for morning, afternoon, and night to integrate observations for qualitative analysis. Quantitative analysis employed descriptive statistics (mean distances, activity distributions), while qualitative analysis involved map interpretation and environmental notes. Reliability and validity were ensured through repeated observations and dual coding.
Results and Discussion
Findings indicate that interpersonal spacing patterns are strongly influenced by day type, time of day, and environmental and physical factors. On low-density weekdays, social and public distances dominate, with individual, transient behavior prevalent. In contrast, near-holiday and holiday periods show higher density, reduced distances, and more intimate interactions. Users actively create secondary territories, particularly along the central pool, peripheral platforms, and shaded zones, while open transitional areas remain primarily public. Fixed elements structure movement and clustering, whereas semi-fixed elements such as furniture, seating, and shade regulate density, distance, and interaction opportunities. Hall’s model alone is insufficient for fully explaining behavior in Iranian public spaces; environmental and spatial components must be integrated. Behavioral mapping revealed that shaded, furnished areas accommodate higher density and closer interactions, while open sunlit areas maintain larger interpersonal distances. The findings align with patterns observed in global public spaces but also reflect local socio-cultural and tourism-related dynamics, emphasizing the importance of context-specific adaptation in public space design.
Conclusion
Naqsh-e Jahan Square functions as a “living behavioral model,” where user behaviors interact with environmental affordances to shape social experiences. Integrating Hall’s proxemics model with spatial and environmental variables provides a practical framework for analyzing and designing user-centered historical public spaces. By adjusting furniture layouts, lighting, shading, zoning, and pathways based on observed behaviors, overcrowding can be reduced and social interactions enhanced. This study contributes to the localization of proxemics theory and offers practical guidance for sustainable, inclusive, and context-aware urban planning in Iran, ensuring that historical public spaces meet real user needs while supporting social vitality and cultural continuity.
 

Keywords

Subjects


1.      Aelbrecht, P. (2024). The Effect of Group Activity Spaces in Community Parks on Social Interaction Levels Using Interpersonal Distance Metrics. Leisure and Society, 8(4), 310‑328. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2024.2284847
2.      Alessandretti, L., Lehmann, S., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Understanding the interplay between social and spatial behaviour. EPJ Data Science, 7, Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0164-6
3.      Ardeshiri, M., Tavakoli, A., & Sharifi, H. (2020). Explaining the Concept of Flexibility in Urban Spaces. Urban Design International, 25(1), 45‑62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340133373_Explaining_the_Concept_of_Flexibility_in_Urban_Spaces
4.      Asbagh, N. B. (2024). Introducing the Masterpieces Adjacent to the Naghsh-e-Jahan Square of Isfahan, Iran. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4892388
5.      Askarizad, R., Pourmohammad, A., & Sadeghi, F. (2022). Post-pandemic urban design: The equilibrium between social distancing and social interactions within the built environment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 80, 103789. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8816640/
6.      Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2001). Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(6), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601753272844
7.      Barkhordar, B., Zare, L., & Mokhtabad Amrei, M. (2021). Revisiting the role of social identity in shaping collective space: Case study of Naqsh-e Jahan Square, Isfahan as a Safavid public space. Manzar Journal, 13(56), 30–43. https://www.manzar-sj.com/article_125250_029ff17888098af74c995f2d65643a19.pdf
8.      Bilen, B., et al. (2024). Social Robot Navigation with Adaptive Proxemics Based on Emotions. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17663
9.      Davoodpour, E., Kameli, M., & Kalantari, M. (2023). Examining the characteristics of public spaces in promoting social interactions among citizens. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Architecture, Civil Engineering, Urban Planning, Environment, and Horizons of Islamic Art in the Second Step of the Revolution. Iran. https://civilica.com/doc/1959425
10.  El-Bardisy, N. (2024). Urban culture as a challenge of enhancing social interaction in public spaces. Discover Cities, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44327-024-00030-6
11.  Foroutan Rad, F., & Zamani, B. (2022). Measuring behavioral hubs in urban squares: A comparative study of Naqsh-e Jahan and Imam Ali Squares in Isfahan. Geography and Urban Space Development, 9(1), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2022.69021.1019
12.  Gehl, J. (2011). Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 14‑18, 29‑35.
13.  Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. pp. 96‑120.
14.  Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books.
15.  Hall, E. T. (2001). The Hidden Dimension (rev. ed.). New York: Anchor Books. pp. 112‑136.
16.  Jalili Sadrabad, S. (2023). Investigating drivers and factors influencing social interactions in urban public spaces: Case study of District 10, Tehran Municipality. Journal of Urban Planning and Geographic Studies. https://doi.org/10.22034/gp.2024.55418.3102
17.   Kautonen, T., Soto Simeone, A., & Kibler, E. (2024). Unpacking the relationship between sense of place and entrepreneurs’ well-being. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-024-00937-9.
18.  Kim, Y.-J., & Kang, H. (2024). Effect of perceived crowding on risk perception in leisure sports based on Edward T. Hall’s concept of ‘proxemics’. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02577-y
19.  Kühn, T., et al. (2022). Linking environmental psychology and critical social psychology: Opportunities and challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 947243. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947243
20.  Loo, B. P. Y., Zhang, F., & Yuen, B. (2024). Design of public open space: Site features, playing, and physical activity. Health & Place, 85, 103149, pp. 3–4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.103149
21.  Qi, Jie., Mazumdar, Suvodeep., & Vasconcelos, Ana C. (2024). Understanding the relationship between urban public space and social cohesion: A systematic review. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 7(2), 155–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-024-00204-5
22.  Rad Ahmadi, M., Fakhar Tehrani, F., & Abouei, R. (2020). Spatial perception in Naqsh-e Jahan Square, Isfahan based on Mulla Sadra’s theory of substantial motion. Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference on Architecture, Urban Planning and Urban Management. https://civilica.com/doc/1134679
23.  Rezaei, A., & Salehi, S. (2024). Examining the impact of semi-open spaces on social interactions in modern cities. Tajalli Honar in Architecture and Urbanism, 2(2), 26-40. https://www.jmaaue.org/index.php/jmaaue/article/view/21
24.  Ribeiro, F., et al. (2024). Understanding the relationship between urban public space and social cohesion: A systematic review. SpringerLink.
25.  Sack, R. D. (1986). Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 15‑18.
26.  Sanei, M., Rahmani, M., & Ahmadi, H. (2018). Flexible Urban Public Spaces and their Designing Principles. Journal of Civil Engineering and Urbanism, 8(4), 39‑43. https://ojceu.com/main/attachments/article/65/J.%20Civil%20Eng.%20Urban.%208%20%284%29%2039-43%2C%202018.pdf
27.  Seamon, D. (2020). Place attachment and phenomenology: The dynamic complexity of place. In L. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications (pp. 11–24). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274442-2
28.  Sepe, M. (2025). Contemporary approaches to healthy and livable public spaces: Proximity, flexibility, and diversification. Springer. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41289-024-00263-2
29.  Shams, F., Pourjafar, M. R., Khatami, S. M., & Soltani, A. (2024). Re-reading the discourse of local community resilience: A resilient neighborhood model based on the social–spatial sphere. Journal of Urban Studies on Space and Place, 6(31), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.22034/jspr.2025.2049697.1096
30.  Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., et al. (2017). Preferred interpersonal distances: A global comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577‑592. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315536031_Preferred_Interpersonal_Distances_A_Global_Comparison
31.  Wang, G., Mehari, A., & Genovese, P. V. (2024). The relationship between spatial behavior and external spatial elements in ancient villages based on GPS‑GIS: A case study of Huangshan Hinterland, China. Sustainability, 16(9), 3756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093756
32.   Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation. pp. 12‑45, 102‑108.