Studies in Environmental Psychology pointed out that privacy and intimacy are highly dependant on the context (Brown, 1992). The literature also stressed that the psychological functions of privacy and intimacy are largely achieved through behavioral regulations involving interpersonal distancing (Brown, 1992; Kaplan, 1977). On the one hand, the environmental attributes of housing facilities or public places can modulate the level of privacy or of intimacy in social interactions (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000; Hortacsu, Oral, & Yasak, 1996). On the other hand, the choice of places, areas and locations is seen as a mean for an individual to achieve a desired level of solitude, isolation or anonymity, and for a group as mean to achieve a desired level intimacy among friends (Pedersen, 1997, 1999). Although the bulk of the studies related to this topic are carried on with questionnaires and interviews, it seemed to us that observations associated with a behavioral mapping technique could usefully contribute to a better appraisal of the relationships between the attributes of the environment and the behavioral achievements of intimacy goals.