Introduction

Distance was considered a primary dimension for geography (Simandan, 2020) and the world in general (Pirie, 2009). However, 'most social science has not seen distance as a problem or even as particularly interesting' (Urry, 2007, p. 54). In a seminal 1955 article, geography was boldly proclaimed as 'a discipline in distance' (Watson, 1955), a declaration that would be challenged 42 years later in 1997, when the distance was declared dead (Cairncross, 1997; see also Kolko, 2000). This statement was coupled with similar ones suggesting 'the death of geography' (Bates, 1996) and the 'end of geography' (O'Brien, 1992). While lacking in specifics about the supposed death of distance, Cairncross's declaration focused on the profound implications of communication innovations and growing globalization on the status and impact of distance. It is worth noting that the commercial Internet, probably the most significant distance minimizer, was a mere two years old at the time of her writing. The universal adoption of smartphones, which transformed the Internet into a constant companion for individuals, was still several years away.

Since Cairncross's provocative declaration, her arguments have been the subject of ongoing debate (e.g., Han et al., 2018; Morgan, 2004). However, the status of distance itself has been primarily assessed in recent years through encyclopedia entries (Gatrell, 2017; Pirie, 2009; Simandan, 2020), with a few other scholarly contributions (e.g. Gatrell, 1983; Simandan, 2016). Simandan claimed that distance, through migration, for example, may provide a wider perspective on places and regions (Kutor et al., 2022; Simandan, 2011). This perceived lack of attention to distance has been interpreted as a sign of its decay (Pirie, 2009). It has been for proximity, the converse of distance (Gatrell, 2017), that has received growing attention as of the 1990s, mainly through the emergence of the interdisciplinary field of mobilities.

Therefore, it is of utmost importance to re-examine the status of distance in 2024, 27 years after its supposed death, in an era of widespread adoption and use of seemingly distance-free virtual space. In this article, our primary goal is to argue for distance's continued relevance and complexity, despite its diminishing role as of the late twentieth century, in the face of technological advancements that have opened vast virtual spaces for human action.

The following sections examine the changing status of distance, notably in recent years, from a specific perspective rather than from the standpoint of some absolute 'truth.' Thus, the emphasis in this article on the contemporary growing importance of the virtual as a transforming factor for the status of physical distance stems from my own special interest in the virtual.

We will begin our discussions by exposing the nature of distance from various linguistic, logical, and historical perspectives. This will be followed by an elaboration on the emergence of five distance classes in chronological order: natural (absolute and relative}, relational, technological, virtual, and optional. We will then discuss the rather contemporary complex status of distance.

The nature of distance

Etymologically, the word 'distance' stems from the Classical-Latin word 'distantia' (Oxford English Dictionary, 2024), meaning valuable in twain, and, thus, geographically referring to valued things divided between two points. Therefore, distance has been considered a negative dimension of life. However, separation in space may sometimes be a favorable position, notably for young people, with separation in space, possibly bringing about some autonomy for individuals and small communities (Pirie, 2009).

Logically, distance constitutes separation in space. This basic definition, not involving humans, seems evident and rather theoretical since the Earth's surface extends physically beyond a pinhead. However, distance has become a meaningful and practical concept only by humans, and this 'humanization' of distance is expressed in two ways. The first human aspect regarding distance involves determining two points in space, which is required to measure the distance between them. This is, once again, a relatively trivial statement, given that humanity and its facilities have not been concentrated on one minimal point in space, thus creating distances by humanity's very existence. The second human primary aspect regarding distance, and a more important one, called for humans to develop tools and measurements to assess the distance between any two points in space. Such developments required knowledge and abilities.

It is assumed that the oldest system of metrology, or distance measurement, was developed in ancient Egypt some 5,000 years ago. A royal cubit was decided to be equal to the arm length plus the palm width of Pharaoh Khufu. This royal cubit was later copied into a piece of granite serving as the master cubit (Sidaway, 2022). Global agreements on distance measures were reached only in the modern age. The current International System of Units, which includes the metric system for distance measures, originated in the French Revolution and was finally approved only in 1921 (BIPM, 2006).

In addition to the development of distance measurement, humans have invested much effort, notably during the last two hundred years, in developing transport and communications technologies to minimize the adverse effects of distance, notably the temporal ones. This effort has been part of a much broader effort to overcome natural 'disturbances.' Thus, buildings were built to avoid rain and snow, lights to function widely at night, and heat and air-conditioning to prevent cold and hot weather. All these means and technologies are optional by nature, so people may prefer to live and function far from others and live in darkness, heat, or cold.

The dimension of separation relates to both physical and virtual spaces. Terminating a communication session between two or more partners or shutting off a communication system implies separation, like separation in physical space. However, in contrast to the temporal and/or physical effort required to overcome physical distance, communication may be restored or restarted by pushing a virtual button, thus instantly re-eliminating distance.

The emergence of distance classes

Table 1 presents five phases for the development of distance since the Earth's surface's creation, and several distance classes are suggested for each of the five phases. These distance phases and classes are accumulative, so all five phases are currently in effect, with the two later ones of virtual and optional distances added only in recent years. Thus, even though the importance of distance as a leading geographical dimension has decreased with the introduction and adoption of the Internet, distance has achieved a rather complex and sophisticated status. The following sections will briefly explore the five phases and discuss contemporary distance.

Table 1 The emergence of distance classes
Full size table

Phase I: Natural distances

Absolute distance constitutes a straight line, Euclidean gap, on Earth's surface. As such, this is the most basic and ancient form of distance. Though implicitly, it requires humans to determine two points between which distance is to be measured and to perform the distance measurement using pre-developed measurement tools and units, the Euclidean distance measurement does not relate to humans and their activities. Absolute distance is the only class that does not explicitly involve humans and their activities. However, measuring the distance or space separating two points creates a relationship between them (Gatrell, 2017; see also Bunge, 1962).

Relative distance, on the other hand, refers to differential human experiences in the measurements of Euclidean distance, expressed by the time and effort required for its passing. Since early humanity, individuals have been able to overcome distances, varyingly bodily, through walking, fast walking, or running. Therefore, the creation of relative distance may be viewed as an essential ability of humans. Relative distance has been enhanced by humans over generations, using external facilities for the shortening of relative distance: first, by using animals for riding, followed later by animal-driven carts, and in modern times, also by cycles and mechanized vehicles (see, e.g., Falk & Abler, 1980).

Absolute and relative distance and space, as well as proximity, have been viewed, in varying ways for preindustrial, industrial, and postindustrial cities, as constituting tyrannies for human mobilities (Warntz, 1967; Toffler, 1980; Duranton, 1999; Blainley, 1966; Mitchell, 1995). 'Space is a tyrant and distances enforce his rule' (Warntz, 1967, p. 7). Even for Internet digital communications, some distance tyranny through higher latency in data transmissions was suggested, mainly for countries outside the global economic cores (Obren & Howell, 2014).

Phase II: Relational distances

Stein (2014) suggested the notion of 'relational distance' specifically for non-physical distances differentiated among people, whereas Gatrell (1983) used the term 'relative distance' for these relational distances. We designated above the term of relative distance to human distance-passing abilities and the transport technologies available to them. Harvey (1969, p. 210) defined relational distance without a suggested name: 'Distance, it seems, can be measured only in terms of process and activity.' This constitutes the relational distance to which we refer here. Therefore, the distance between any two points is related to some specific people and their activities, as well as varying transport and time costs. Relational distance is, thus, unique to particular people and their activities. In contrast, relative distance relates, as we mentioned already, to differential distances passed by any person, potentially using various distance-overcoming human abilities or transport technologies.

It is difficult to pinpoint when humans began calculating differing monetary and temporal costs of distance overcoming related to varying needs or products. Scientifically, though, it was for von Thϋnen to portray relational distances (von Thünen, 1826). He did so in his crop and intensity theories, based on empirical calculations for a farm in Germany, published first in 1826, i.e., before the introduction of railways. The primary Thϋnian thought is that crop production is organized around an urban market in circles of crops, arranged so by demand for them and by their volume and weight. One can assume that Thϋnen's study reflected the cost-related distance conception of the eighteenth century.

Several terms have emerged for the study of relational distances. The decline in some activity with growing distances from any center was called 'distance decay'', also expressed in the first law of geography: 'Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things' (Tobler, 1970, p. 236). The efforts invested in shipping and moving over distances were suggested to constitute 'effort distances' (Falk & Abler, 1980). In contrast, the differential investments in overcoming distances were termed 'friction of distance.'

Distance decay may also apply to virtual space. Murnion and Healy's (1998) study of measured distance decay and gravity models for individual websites, implicitly assumed that the server of each website constitutes a center, so website users were scattered globally along distance from it, as measured by latency. This type of distance decay implies that the Internet consists of millions of kinds of 'local' centers, namely website hosting servers, with their clientele scattered around them.

Culturally, distance has received a somewhat positive connotation through the term 'distanciation', defined as the ‘stretching’ of social systems in time and space (Giddens, 1990), mainly through the development of culture (such as the spread of writing) and mobility technologies.

Phase III: Technological distances

By technological distances, we refer to distances that developed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as manipulations emerging as a result of the development and adoption of mechanized transport technologies of all categories: trains, metros, buses, taxis, cycles, and above all, the powerful private cars, which permitted its drivers to reach individually long distances at much shorter times than any other technological and non-technological mobility options.

As of the early nineteenth century, the development of mechanized terrestrial and virtual mobility means has drawn wide scholarly attention to the possibly changing experience, perception, and significance of distance by their users for personal mobilities. Such interpretations were offered for trains (Schivelbusch, 1986), the telegraph (Standage, 2007), the telephone (e.g., Fischer, 1992), the car (e.g., Freund & Martin, 1993; Sheller & Urry, 2000), the Internet (e.g., Urry, 2000), and the mobile phone (Richardson & Wilken, 2012). These transport and communications technologies have brought about shorter experienced distances given the speed and convenience of travel and communications facilitated by them.

Adopting mechanized transport technologies involved an increased importance of three aspects: extensibility, accessibility, and speed. Extensibility was initially defined by Janelle (1973, p. 11) as 'the expansion of opportunities for human interaction.' It was redefined later by Adams (1995), as well as by Kwan (2001), to mean 'the ability of a person (or group) to overcome the friction of distance through transportation or communication' (Adams, 1995, p. 267). This latter definition refers to potentials for movements but not to their actual materialization. Usually, we assume that people who own private cars and mobile phones and/or broadband communications in the twenty-first century enjoy more extensive extensibilities.

Accessibility was defined as 'the number of opportunities, also called activity sites, available within a certain distance or travel time' (Hanson, 1995, p. 4). The number of opportunities within a given distance depends on the transport technology individuals use to reach such opportunities, given the travel time difference, for example, between buses and private cars. In this sense, accessibility is complementary to extensibility. Whereas extensibility refers to the ability to move or potential movement, accessibility refers to possible locations, or the fixed, to be reached by potential movement. Accessibility, thus, connects people and places.

Speed constitutes the duration or time of movement in space or over distance from origin to destination. Hence, enhanced physical or virtual mobility technologies may imply speeding up people's movements and information in time–space, respectively. Speed, as a social value of speeding up at times of technologically enhanced abilities to overcome distances, was viewed as 'an irresistible temptation beyond reasonable rational calculation' (Hägerstrand, 1992, p. 35). Moreover, speed was assessed as the core of modernity, notably in cities (Prendergast, 1992, p, 5; Thrift, 1996, pp. 286–289; Sheller & Urry, 2000), so 'speed is the premier cultural icon of modern societies…Speed symbolizes manliness, progress, and dynamism' (Freund & Martin, 1993, p. 89). Thus, it was for Virillio (1983, p. 45) to call our era 'the age of the accelerator.'

Phase IV: Virtual distances

All three previous distance classes were measured and overcome in physical space. In the late twentieth century, the commercial Internet was introduced in 1995, allowing individuals to transmit information in all its categories and formats: audial, audio-visual, still video, streaming video, and textual. It has become possible for individuals to interact with each other even over long distances and to perform numerous activities, such as shopping and banking, in virtual space, using platforms, websites, and applications developed for their performance over the Internet. Virtual space does not consist of any space that creates distances to be overcome, and it offers speeds of the light for information transmissions. Though, as we noted already, there are some latencies in virtual space as well, they usually are not felt by individual Internet users.

The introduction of the revolutionary Internet came after over a century of partial transmission of information made possible for individuals. The innovation of the telephone back in 1876 introduced the notions of immediacy and instantaneity into the world of personal mobility. Whereas the traditional postal service and the technological telegraph implied lagged communications between two parties, the telephone permitted simultaneous two-way conversations, fully imitating real-life human interaction. Immediacy and instantaneity have remained unique qualities of electronic telecommunications since they could not be equally applied to corporeal mobility, given the terrestrial nature of transportation. The contemporary rush for ever-increasing broadband Internet speeds presents a desire to avoid any differentiation in immediacy and instantaneity between vocal connection, on the one hand, and the transmission of the heaviest file of data or streaming pictures, on the other. Similarly, the transmission of video clips over mobile phones has had to await 3G (3rd generation) high transmission speeds as of the 2010s.

The extent of Internet usage was widely expanded with the enhancement of mobile phones into smartphones connected to the Internet and GPS (Global Position Satellites) in the early 2000s, thus providing individuals with continuous Internet connectivity anywhere. The two technologies of the Internet and its full mobile use have yielded a focus on proximity rather than on distance, and they further enabled the emergence of several virtual distance classes: digital, cognitive, and metaphorical.

Proximity constitutes, by its very nature, the opposite of distance. The lack of physical distances in virtual communications has brought proximity to the center of attention. Early business video conferencing brought Boden and Molotch (1994) to suggest the 'compulsion of proximity' as calling for a preference for face-to-face meetings despite the seemingly same lack of distance in virtual communications. This notion of proximity compulsion was later extended to the human need for traveling (Urry, 2002).

Hence, proximity is not merely a spatial notion measured by distance units, as it constitutes foremost a social value for people who may aim at an enhancement of their nearness to their parties, thus operating for a decrease of the physical distance separating them, something which may apply to distances between people and their facilities (e.g., working places and stores), as well (Kellerman, 2022). Organizationally, proximity among workers may be highly required, side by side, with a potential need for some distancing, which may permit autonomous thought and operation (see, e.g., Knoben & Oerlemans, 2006; Boschma, 2005). The contemporary importance of proximity has received particular significance in the knowledge creation industry as a crucial element for innovation (for reviews, see, e.g., Morgan, 2004 and Rutten, 2017).

Internet users may still experience a sense of 'digital distance' despite the seeming lack of and irrelevance of measured physical distance within the virtual Internet, at least for its routine users. Weinberger (2002, p. 45) noted in this respect that 'distance on the Web is measured by links', and 'links are all that holds the Web together; without links, there is no Web' (p. 54, see also Wang et al., 2003). Thus, distances over the Internet may be measured by the number of clicks that users may be required to make to reach specific pages within websites or the number of clicks needed for them to get to some other websites, assuming that proper links are provided on website pages (see also Ash, 2009, pp. 2113–2114). Wang et al. (2003) claimed in their study of websites of American universities that there is some relationship between the number of clicks required to reach the websites of other universities from any university website, on the one hand, and the physical distance in real space among the institutes which own these websites, on the other.

This same principle of distance, as expressed by the number of clicks while surfing the Web, also applies to the communications class of the Internet, namely for e-mailing and even more so for social networking. Communication distance may be expressed by the number of clicks subscribers need to reach a particular individual, so the number of clicks constitutes a measure of distance among people in cyberspace.

Generally, then, the number of clicks amounts to the time and effort applied to Internet search, surfing, use, and communicating, and this is like the idea of time and effort involved in physical space travel. Yet, the cyberspatial distance, as measured by the number of clicks, has not matured into a formal metric, like distance metrics employed for real space. In other words, so far, Internet users usually do not compare the number of clicks they have to make for specific searches, nor do they check the number of clicks made for surfing sessions or searches for people. Still, however, such a tendency may emerge (Kellerman, 2016).

Another type of virtual distance is our subjective perception of some physical one. Following the veteran school of 'mental maps' (e.g., Gould & White, 1974), Simandan (2016) suggested that cognitive distance comprises four dimensions: spatial, temporal, social, and hypothetical. Thus, bus riders may assess distances differently than car drivers (Pirie, 2009). Gatrell (2017) added another dimension to cognitive distancing related to the specific properties of a couple of places. Thus, one may subjectively measure a shorter distance between two liked places than between two disliked ones.

Metaphorical distance was suggested to be the number of contacts, whichever is defined, between two places and those between two others (Falk & Abler, 1980). Another, and completely different, metaphorical distance may be the linguistic interpretations Pirie (2009) offered to expressions reflecting notions of distance, for example, 'go the distance' and 'keep your distance.'

Phase V: Optional distance

The maturing of the Internet Web system in the early 2000s involved the introduction of websites and apps for the virtual performance of numerous activities, traditionally carried out in physical space. These included mainly shopping, banking, travel reservations, health maintenance, and governmental services, all joining the originally offered e-mailing for social interaction. Hence, by the optionality of distance, we refer to the ability of Internet users to opt for the performance of these activities either in physical space, thus involving distance overcoming, or instantly in virtual space. For social ties, specifically, the Internet facilitates establishing and maintaining social relations at any distance from one's location (Rainie & Wellman, 2012).

Numerous empirical studies have shown that under contemporary technological conditions, which facilitate the optionality of distance for social ties, humans still prefer to maintain mainly local or nearby social contacts (Kellerman, 2022). This repeated finding presents a dominance of the social human need for proximity. This preference for proximity brings about a continued individual accent on local contacts, presented contemporarily through a blend of virtual and face-to-face communications.

The Coronavirus pandemic (2020–2021) provided a unique and enforced human experiment for distance optionality. The prolonged worldwide lockdowns compelled people to use the Internet as a substitutive spatial arena for activities previously performed in physical space, at some distance or far from home. This applied especially to daily activities such as work and shopping.

As Table 2 shows for worldwide trends, remote work in all its modes (full, hybrid, and digital nomads) was only modestly adopted in pre-COVID-19 2019 since both employers and employees preferred face-to-face interaction at workplaces, despite the need to overcome physical distances by workers' commuting, and the need for employers to provide for office and parking spaces. Thus, within two years after 2019, a 304% growth in global remote work was identified for 2021. However, the fading away of the pandemic in 2023 brought about some decline in remote work, though the 2023 rate of 41.9% was still much higher than the pre-pandemic 2019 one of 17.3%. Thus, employers and employees have gained some positive experience regarding remote work during the pandemic. However, when distance optionality was restored, physical space and its companioning distance overcoming were partially preferred once again over remote work.

Table 2 Percentages of virtual performers worldwide 2019–2023 (Two-year percentage growth in parentheses)
Full size table

For shopping online, the pre-pandemic adoption rates were higher than for work, and this trend has continued through the pandemic and after its fading away. Still, for most of their shopping, people opted for physical stores, involving some distance overcoming, from home and work to their locations, thus preferring the physical touch with merchandise, trusting physical sellers more than virtual ones, and enjoying the general experience of shopping malls and city streets.

The use of virtual communications via e-mailing and chat platforms, such as WhatsApp, has grown continuously. However, as we discussed, this does not mean less face-to-face contact, as these two modes of communication complement each other.

Another mode of distance optionality is driving navigation, as offered by the most popular navigation apps, such as Google Maps and Waze. These apps offer drivers several ride options, differing by physical and temporal distances, with a default option of minimal trip duration from origin to destination. The options proposed by the navigation apps are only estimated since changing traffic conditions may distort the original time estimations.

Discussion: The contemporary status of distance

Distance has constituted a challenge for humanity ever since. However, economic developments followed by telecommunication during pre-modernity and modernity have weakened its power. As we noted in Table 2, the importance of distance grew during each of its first three phases of development: natural, relational, and technological, but it declined in the two following virtual and optional phases, which canceled out the friction of physical distance. However, even if distance is considered less significant, it is impossible to suggest its death or the end of space since human individuals, their activities, and artifacts are all still anchored in physical space. This includes smartphone subscribers to the location-free Internet, who use the system while on the move.

Distance in physical space is still there, showing no signs of an upcoming disappearance. Contemporary humans may, though, overcome any distance on earth, one way or another, unless prevented from doing so by political national sovereignties. The five historical phases in the development of the status of distance, which we noted in the previous sections, do not replace each other; they have instead developed on top of each other. This implies that contemporarily, we experience absolute, relative, relational, technological, virtual, and optional distances, depending on specific cases of separation, either in physical or virtual spaces.

The pre-Internet domination of distance, notably during the relational phase, served as a limiting 'tyranny' power for social interaction and economic and personal activities due to the lack of mechanized transport and telecommunications means for its overcoming. This restricting power of distance disappeared with the introduction and adoption of the Internet, which has facilitated social interactions and human economic activities without regard to location and distance. However, other powers relating to the human needs for social, personal, and work proximity and the instantaneous physical touch with artifacts have replaced the previously prevailing friction of distance. The preference for proximity was indeed there and significantly so even during the early phases of distance domination, but it was somewhat hidden under the prominence of the limiting power of distance by then. Being revealed independently now, when distance does not avoid social and business ties anymore, proximity yields, once again, solid, and local relations and activities but of a contemporary nature, consisting of blends of physical and virtual interactions.

At the social level, face-to-face and virtual interactions may mutually reinforce each other. Numerous people may develop and maintain remote relations, even if only within their globally spanning work life, but their social core may still be local. In the age of individualism and Internet connectivity, this restructured localism in social interaction may bring about some unforeseen new forms of interaction (Kellerman, 2022).

Distance overcoming has always involved an element of choice, even if only between walking and running, as relative distance. Currently, the choice of distance overcoming is rather sophisticated and complex. There is a choice between physical and virtual spaces, and within each of the two, with several technologies at the disposal of individuals. The very choice of the distance-overcoming arena and technology is case-specific since, as we have noted, at stake are not only costs, monetary and temporal ones, but human needs and values, such as face-to-face meetings, a touch of merchandise, joy, and environmental experience, which might give preference to physical distance-effected movement or might give preference for audio-visual rather than audial communications. The significance of distance has declined in the digital age, but this more restricted significance has become rather complex and sophisticated.