Reconstructing the microbrewery taproom experiencescape through narratives in online travel reviews: A case from Houston,Texas USA

Abstract

The number of craft breweries on the American landscape has grown exponentially over the past several decades. The literature on craft beer and beer tourism has grown accordingly. Yet, visitors’ experience of the craft brewery taproom remains an under-examined aspect of this literature. O’Dell (2005) proposed the idea of examining the landscapes of experiences, or experiencescapes, including the physical and social spaces that allow for the co-creation of experiences. The concept has increasingly been used to examine culinary, gastronomic, and wine tourism experiences. Thus, this exploratory study begins to address the gap in the craft beer and beer tourism literature by reconstructing the experiencescape of craft brewery taprooms from visitor narratives in online travel reviews for microbreweries and taproom breweries in Houston, Texas (USA). The study employs thematic narrative analysis to identify the components of the physical and social environments of the brewery taproom that comprise the experiencescape and contribute to positive, memorable experiences. Findings indicate that consuming the craft beer product is only one part of the taproom experiencescape; breweries must consider the taproom experience holistically. Opportunities exist to facilitate a more conscious experiencescape design to engage visitors’ senses for more immersive and memorable experiences.

Keywords

Microbreweries taproom breweries craft beer tourism experiencescape narratives online travel reviews thematic narrative analysis

Introduction

Since the 1980s, the number of breweries has increased exponentially. Between 1978 and 2019, breweries in the United States of America (USA) increased by over 9000%; small and independent craft breweries have accounted for almost all this growth (Brewers Association, 2022b). Academic and popular authors alike have often referred to this dramatic transformation the “craft beer revolution” (Garavaglia and Swinnen, 2017; Hindy, 2014; Naylor, 2014; Withers, 2017; Thompson, 2018).

With the increase in craft breweries and demand for craft beer, academic research has grown accordingly. Studies have considered the relationship between craft breweries and neolocalism (Flack, 1997; Fletchall, 2016; Graefe et al., 2018; Holtkamp et al., 2016; Mathews and Patton, 2016), craft breweries and neighborhoods (Apardian and Reid, 2020; Barajas et al., 2017), craft breweries and tourism trails (Myles and Breen, 2018; Slocum, 2016), and craft beer tourists (Bradley et al., 2017; Francioni Kraftchick et al., 2014). However, the experience of craft brewery taprooms has largely been neglected in research, despite the shift toward an experience economy in which consumers prioritize positive, memorable experiences over products or services. This exploratory study begins to address this gap by reconstructing the experiencescape of craft brewery taprooms, or the physical and social spaces that allow for the co-creation of experiences, from the memories and narratives of visitors in online travel reviews (OTR). Such a study has theoretical implications as we seek to better understand why craft brewery taprooms have become popular tourism and leisure spaces as well as managerial implications for the elements that facilitate the creation of positive and memorable experiences in these spaces.

Previous studies have applied the experiencescape concept in a variety of contexts, including the hospitality industry (Ledikwe, 2021), cultural heritage tourism (Chen et al., 2020a), farm tourism (Mei et al., 2020), nature tourism (Fossgard and Fredman, 2019), and ski tourism (McLeay et al., 2019). In recent years, experiencescapes have also been examined in terms of various culinary, gastronomic (Fusté-Forné 2021; Handayani, 2021; Mossberg and Eide, 2017; Ngoc Su et al., 2020; Richards, 2021), and wine tourism experiences (Carvalho et al., 2021; Gunasekar et al., 2021). While such studies have the potential to inform our understanding of related tourism experiences, it is worth considering the distinct factors that comprise the burgeoning craft brewery experiencescape.

This case study examines OTR narratives for microbreweries and taproom breweries in the city of Houston, Texas (USA). The study employs thematic narrative analysis to identify the components of the physical and social environments of the brewery taproom that comprise the experiencescape and contribute to positive, memorable experiences. The first section of the paper introduces American craft breweries, with particular attention given to the microbrewery and taproom brewery categories and highlights the need to better understand visitors’ experiences at these breweries. This section further considers the experiencescape concept as a means of exploring these experiences. The next section provides an overview of the data used in this study, namely OTR from Tripadvisor, and the thematic narrative analysis method employed. The third section seeks to reconstruct the microbrewery taproom experiencescape from visitors’ narratives in OTR. Finally, the last section of the paper discusses the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of this study.

Literature review

Craft breweries, microbreweries, and taproom breweries

In 1978, there were just 89 breweries in the United States of America (USA). By 2019, that number had grown to 8502. Of these breweries, the overwhelming majority (98.7%) are small and independent craft breweries as defined by the Brewers Association (2022b). Furthermore, over half of the craft breweries (4980) are categorized as either microbreweries (i.e., craft breweries that produce less than 15,000 barrels of beer per year and sell 75% or more of its beer off site) or taproom breweries (i.e., craft breweries that sell 25% or more of its beer on site and do not operate significant food services) (Brewers Association, 2022a).

Taylor and DiPietro (2020) liken the microbrewery taproom to a winery tasting room. The wine tourism literature shows that winery visits involve more than just selling and/or consuming wine. In a critical discussion of wine tourists’ motivations, behaviors, and experiences, Mitchell et al. (2000) advocate for an experiential perspective of wine tourism. This perspective has since been explored in the literature (e.g., Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Bruwer and Rueger-Muck, 2019; Quadri-Felitti and Fiore 2016). Research on beer tourism, however, has been slower to acknowledge the role of experience.

Apardian and Reid (2020) suggest that brewery taprooms are becoming a type of Third Place, or informal public gathering place, on the urban landscape. This theory is supported by studies that find brewery taprooms to provide spaces to facilitate social interaction (Bachman et al., 2021; Myles and Breen 2018). Key social interactions identified include spending time and bonding with family or friends, meeting new people in one’s community (Francioni Kraftchick et al., 2014; Graefe et al., 2018), forming new social networks or relationships (Holtkamp et al., 2016), talking to local people (Fletchall, 2016), and interacting with bartenders or brew masters (Rogerson and Collins, 2015). Yet, Dunn and Wickham (2016) argued that the potential for experiential tourism remained largely unrealized as brewers maintained a narrow focus on the production of high-quality craft beer products. Similarly, Francioni Kraftchick et al. (2014) concluded that breweries could better attract new and repeat visitors by providing an environment conducive to social interaction as well as entertainment and/or other activities.

Breweries that create positive, memorable social experiences should experience stronger loyalty (Bachman et al., 2021) not only to the brand (e.g., buying beer after the visit) but also to the attraction (e.g., returning to the brewery) (Murray and Kline, 2015). Thus, a Brewers Association analyst stated, “I think it’s pretty clear that getting people into breweries is a good thing for the beer industry, or more broadly, that everyone in beer should not just support brewery visits, but actively try to re-create the reasons people go to breweries” (Watson, 2018). Despite this acknowledgment, Nelson (2021) concludes that the experience of craft breweries is a poorly developed theme in the tourism and hospitality literature.

Experiencescapes

With the shift to the experience economy, consumers now look for more than products or services; they look for positive, memorable experiences (Pine and Gilmore, 1999). These experiences have become the primary source of satisfaction (Piramanayagam et al., 2020). According to O’Dell (2005: 15), “The selling, packaging, and ultimate consumption of experiences is perhaps one of the best examples of a phenomenon that can thoroughly transcend and blur the border between tourism and leisure.” Creating positive and memorable experiences is a central task for tourism planners and leisure service providers alike (Blumenthal and Jensen, 2019). However, consumers are increasingly moving away from being a passive audience to co-creators of their own experiences (McLeay et al., 2019). This introduces variables that are beyond the control of service providers (Fossgard and Fredman, 2019), which makes it more difficult to predict the outcome (Kandampully et al., 2022).

Experiences are complex in that they are intangible, ephemeral, subjective, and personal (Blumenthal and Jensen, 2019; Margaryan and Fossgard, 2020; Mei et al., 2020; Mody et al., 2017; O’Dell, 2005). Thus, experiences are organized spatially, rooted in social meanings, and shaped by interactions with others (Chen et al., 2020b; Fossgard and Fredman, 2019; Margaryan and Fossgard, 2020; O’Dell 2005; Ooi, 2005). Experiences occur in an infinite number of places, from high-profile tourist attractions to the places of our everyday lives (O’Dell, 2005).

O’Dell (2005) proposes examining landscapes of experiences, or experiencescapes. The concept of an experiencescape expands upon the servicescape framework that considers the ways in which the built environment affects both consumers and employees (Bitner, 1992). Servicescapes are the product of spatial layout, ambient conditions, and various signs, symbols or artefacts (Sekhon and Roy, 2015). The experiencescape concept further considers consumers’ interactions with service providers as well as other consumers (Blumenthal and Jensen, 2019; Kandampully et al., 2022). Producers can organize the physical space or set the stage that creates a social space in which people come together, interact (O’Dell, 2005), and co-create experiences (Tresidder and Deakin, 2019). The experiencescape concept therefore allows us to holistically consider this space (Chen et al., 2020a) that encompasses commercial transactions and social interactions to create personal experiences (Vespestad and Hansen, 2020).

Some studies have focused on particular ‘scapes’ such as foodscapes (Björk and Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2019; Fusté-Forné and Berno, 2016) or soundscapes (Jiang, 2022; Kankhuni and Ngwira, 2021). However, Kastenholz et al. (2012) contend that experiencescapes appeal to all the senses, often linking a variety of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches to the designated theme. Such themes allow consumers to immerse themselves and to create their experiences (Blumenthal and Jensen, 2019; Chen et al., 2020b; Kastenholz et al., 2012). Tresidder and Deakin (2019) note a variety of explicit strategies that appeal to visitors’ senses to immerse them in the experience as well as subtler strategies to create certain feelings or an ambiance that shapes the experience. Kandampully et al. (2022) find that consumers should have the opportunity to enjoy both the décor and the atmosphere that support the theme. In addition, McLeay et al. (2019) emphasize that experiencescape design should include attributes that encourage social interaction, from strengthening existing friendships or family bonds to meeting new people and forging new friendships.

Despite the literature supporting a thoughtful design process, Mei et al. (2020) state that few service providers employ professional designers to stage the experiencescape. In their case, they found that farm tourism operators primarily focused on the sale of farm products as opposed to the creation of experiences. However, the authors consider the experiencescape to play a vital role in farm tourism, given the tangible elements (e.g., the farm setting and buildings, farm products) and especially the intangible elements (e.g., the interactions between the farmer and visitors, visitors’ participation in farm activities) involved in the experience (Mei et al., 2020). As such, “The concept of the experiencescape is more than an academic construct; it is an important aspect in creating successful and differentiated tourism and hospitality experiences” (Tresidder and Deakin, 2019: 196).

Chen (2022) finds that studies often apply experiencescapes as a theoretical background rather than employing the concept as an analytical tool to develop a holistic understanding of experience creation. However, scholars often reflect on the challenges of assessing aspects of the experiencescape (Blumenthal and Jensen, 2019; Fossgard and Fredman, 2019). Thus, rather than imposing a researcher-designed framework, this study seeks to reconstruct the craft brewery taproom experiencescape from the unprompted visitor narratives in online travel reviews. Narratives have played an important role in understanding memorable tourism experiences (De Freitas Coelho et al., 2018; Rickly and McCabe, 2017; Servidio and Ruffolo, 2016; Sthapit, 2018; Zare, 2019), but the narrative approach has remained underutilized in understanding the co-creation of memorable tourism experiencescapes (see, for example, Handayani, 2021). As outlined below, this study provides an example of a thematic narrative approach to this research.

Data and methodology

Data collection

For this exploratory and qualitative study, the author selected a single case design using the local city of Houston, Texas based on firsthand experience with the breweries and familiarity with the themes employed by the breweries. As with similar USA-based studies (e.g., Holtkamp et al., 2016; Mathews and Patton, 2016), the author drew from the Brewers Association database to identify craft breweries. The author identified eleven Houston craft breweries in the ‘microbrewery’ and ‘taproom’ categories, because the Brewers Association classified them together through 2018. The author chose these categories to focus on brewery taproom experiences as opposed to dining experiences (e.g., with brewpubs that operate significant food services).

To reconstruct the microbrewery taproom experiencescape, the author collected visitor narratives in online travel reviews (OTR). Narration of experiences comes naturally. Narratives are used to recount and make sense of experiences (Webster and Mertova, 2007), and they shape the memories of these experiences over time (Sthapit and Björk, 2019). Thus, narratives should not be viewed as exact accounts of events but interpretations of experiences. As such, narratives provide insight into the ways in which experiences are remembered (Zare, 2019) and may be considered a powerful, if underestimated, tool for understanding experiences (Servidio and Ruffolo (2016).

OTR comprise the most significant category of user-generated content, and Tripadvisor self-identifies as “the world’s largest travel guidance platform,” citing nearly one billion reviews of millions of businesses (Tripadvisor, 2017). Stoleriu et al. (2019: 196) argue that “Spontaneous visitor comments and reviews coming from these alternative sources can provide specific insights into visitors’ experiences that traditional interviews can overlook.” Vásquez (2012) highlights the potential for exploring first-person digital narratives of personal experience through OTR. Similarly, Jurafsky et al. (2014) note that OTR go beyond discussing the product consumed (in their case, food) to narrating the experience. Carter (2016) adds that such reviews constitute short stories about visitors’ experiences that exhibit classic narrative structural features. However, Van Laer et al. (2019) find that, due to the short length of online reviews, the narrative aspect is often ignored.

The first Tripadvisor review for the selected Houston breweries was posted on in May 2014. The author collected all reviews for the breweries from this time through December 2019. The author elected to end data collection at this time to ensure that reviews maintained a focus on the microbrewery taproom experience. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, brewery taprooms were closed for most of 2020 and safety protocols (e.g., capacity limits, social distancing, mask mandates for both employees and consumers) continued to shape the taproom experience into 2021.

The author manually entered reviews into Microsoft Word to ensure that review content spoke to the brewery experience. Only one review was eliminated from the sample because the reviewer clearly stated that he/she did not visit the brewery but sampled the beer at another venue. The final sample consisted of 275 narratives of the microbrewery taproom experience. While quantitative studies may encompass thousands of Tripadvisor reviews, qualitative studies typically utilize between 100 and 400 reviews (e.g., 100 hotel reviews in Vásquez, 2012, 208 reviews of tourist attractions in Lozano-Monterrubio and Huertas, 2020; 330 reviews of a dark tourism site in Çakar, 2018).

Methodology

Previous studies using OTR data have employed content analysis (Çakar, 2018; Carter, 2016; Kladou and Mavragani, 2015), narrative analysis (Vásquez, 2012), and a combined methodology (Stoleriu et al., 2019). This study used a combined methodology in the form of thematic narrative analysis. This is an inductive approach that allows the researcher to derive themes from the data (Thomas, 2006). These themes are derived through content analysis, which provides the basis for more in-depth narrative analysis.

For each of the identified craft breweries, the author extracted information about the review (i.e., rating, date, title, and origin of the reviewer if given) as well as the textual content of the review. The author manually performed content analysis to become familiar with and organize the data. While automated programs can perform content analysis, researchers continue to find that manual coding can better organize the data (Gursoy et al., 2021) and better account for communicative aspects of the data (Lozano-Monterubbio and Huertas, 2020). This was an iterative process of tracking key words and phrases, establishing reliability, identifying codes, and organizing codes into thematic categories that capture patterns from the data as well as meaningfully represent the data. Codes included descriptive terms (e.g., hot, patio, welcoming, fresh, friendly, etc.), while categories reflected a range of themes (e.g., location, logistics, space, weather, activities, purchasing, food, service, atmosphere). The author then used narrative analysis to explore the meanings of the resulting thematic categories.

Narrative analysis is a way of understanding subjective experience (Clandinin and Caine, 2008) and has been particularly important in understanding tourist experiences (e.g., Bosangit et al., 2015; Rickly-Boyd, 2009; Volo 2010). Narrative analysis considers issues such as the ways in which an individual sets the scene, the sequence of events, participants in the story, and emotional reactions to the experience. However, methodological scholars emphasize that there is no one method of narrative analysis (Clandinin and Caine, 2008; Riessman, 1993). Specifically, the thematic narrative analysis approach used in this study emphasizes the thematic meanings of the narrative over its form (Riessman, 2008). In other words, the focus of the research is on understanding experiences narrated as opposed to understanding narrative devices (Bamberg, 2012). Thematic categories derived from content analysis thus organized both the eventive and evaluative components of the narrative. The author further analyzed these components to reflect on the physical and social spaces that facilitated actions and interactions. Finally, the author considered components holistically, which aided in the process of reconstructing the microbrewery taproom experiencescape from the visitor’s perspective.

Findings

Microbrewery taproom reviewers

In this sample, 81.45% of Tripadvisor reviewers identified a place of origin (Figure 1). This is slightly less than found in similar studies (e.g., 86.21% in Kladou and Mavragani, 2015). Visitors from the USA clearly dominated the sample with 91.07% of reviewers who identified a place of origin. Although 24 states were represented in the sample, visitors from Texas accounted for the majority (i.e., 63.83% of all reviewers who identified a place of origin and 70.09% of US visitors). Further, visitors from the city of Houston and the Houston metropolitan area comprised 47.32% of all reviewers who identify a place of origin. This is compared to Francioni Kraftchick et al. (2014) study in which 62.00% of North Carolina brewery visitors in their sample were local.

Table 1.

The craft beer product in microbrewery taproom reviews.

Percent of reviewers who stated opinion of breweries’ beer		56.36%
Positive opinions	84.69%
Sample codes:
Good
Great
Excellent
Superb
Delicious
Ambivalent opinions	9.57%
Sample codes:
Okay
Fine
Decent
Average
Drinkable
Negative opinions	5.74%
Sample codes:
Not impressed
Not memorable
Not great
Not a fan
Boring
Percent of reviewers who provided detailed reviews of breweries’ beer		2.90%
Percent of reviewers who did not drink or discuss breweries’ beer		3.64%

Table 2.

The experiencescape in microbrewery reviews.

Location and logistics	6.19%	Purchasing beer	1.73%
Sample codes:		Sample codes:
Neighborhood		High/low price
Industrial/warehouse district		Large/small pour
Easy/hard to find		Taproom-only
Lots of/limited parking		Plastic cups
Public transportation		Token systems
Brewery space	12.93%	Food	5.69%
Sample codes:		Sample codes:
Indoor/outdoor		Food truck
Big/small		Barbecue
Lots of seating/limited seating		Bring-your-own
AC/no AC		Snacks
Loud/quiet		Delivery
Weather	1.73%	Service	4.01%
Sample codes:		Sample codes:
Heat		Knowledgeable
Humidity		Friendly
Mild		Helpful
Cool		Patient
Rainy		Busy
Activities	9.88%	Atmosphere	9.88%
Sample codes:		Sample codes:
Play games		Relaxed
Sample beers		Friendly
Listen to music		Kid-friendly
Watch sporting events		Pet-friendly
Hang out and socialize		Fun

The craft beer product in microbrewery taproom reviews

Beer was, of course, a significant topic in visitor reviews (Table 1); 56.36% of reviewers explicitly stated their opinion about one or more of the breweries’ beer. Most descriptors (84.69%) expressed a positive opinion of the beers sampled (e.g., great, excellent, superb, delicious). Additionally, 9.57% of descriptors indicated ambivalent attitudes (e.g., okay, fine, decent, average) and 5.74% of descriptors expressed a negative opinion (e.g., not impressed, not memorable, not great, boring). Key codes included cold, fresh, smooth, clean, dark, light, hoppy, malty, fruity, sweet, strong, bitter, and skunky.

Scholars have previously examined craft breweries’ use of place-based themes (Mathews and Patton, 2016; Schnell and Reese, 2003). In this sample, just under one-third of the beers identified in reviews included place-based references, such as 1836 Copper Ale for the year Texas declared independence from Mexico, Mission Control for NASA’s Space Center, Hop Gusher for Houston’s oil industry, Astroturf for the synthetic turf pioneered in an old sports stadium, and Cougar Paw Red Ale for the University of Houston mascot, among others. Beyond referencing these beer names, only a small proportion of reviewers commented on the city connections (e.g., “Love the names of [the] beer with the Houston connections” B11, 2018).

Only 2.90% of reviewers offered more substantive discussion of the beers sampled. These reviewers included brief descriptions with key vocabulary terms, such as:

[The] IPA (American-style) had nice bitterness with a good hop profile and a hint of maltiness (B10, 2016).

[T]he … beer with it’s (sic) dark aromas of chocolate and espresso with the right hint of sweet is worth it (B3, 2016).

Dedicated craft beer consumers are more likely to provide detailed reviews of specific beers on sites like Ratebeer.com or BeerAdvocate.com (Nelson, 2021). In the sample, 3.64% of reviewers stated that they did not try the beer during their visit or made no mention of beer at all. Thus, consumption of beer is a part of the taproom experience, but it was only one part of reviewer narratives.

The experiencescape in microbrewery taproom reviews

Narratives began prior to arriving at the brewery (Table 2). Chen (2022) argues that the pre-experience stage should be considered in our understanding of experiencescapes. Out of all codes, 6.19% pertain to the location and logistics of the brewery visited. Reviewers situated the brewery visited within a certain area of the city such as the Heights, EADO (i.e., east downtown), and Midtown, or near downtown sites such as the convention center or professional sports stadiums. One brewery was accessible via METRORail, Houston’s limited light rail public transportation system, and another was within walking distance of the convention center. However, most reviewers accessed Houston’s breweries by car. Thus, reviewers’ narratives related the ease (or lack) of finding the brewery and parking at or near the brewery.

[Brewery] was a nice place, albeit not easy to find (Thank God for Google maps!!!) But, once we navigated our way there and figured out how not to go the wrong way where the rail system was, we were safe! They had plenty of parking too (B8, 2018).

Parking was a little tough, mainly out on the street. I think this was due to the [sporting event] but I think the parking is always a crap shoot (B11, 2018).

Reviewers then described the breweries’ location within industrial and/or warehouse spaces. Urban, light industrial areas are common locations for craft breweries (Dunn and Kregor, 2014) due to cost factors as well as potential noise or olfactory pollution (Barajas et al., 2017). There was a diversity of opinions on this location. Some expressed concern:

The location is not great, as it is basically in an industrial warehouse district (B11, 2016).

When driving there, the neighborhood looks kind of sketchy (B9, 2016).

The majority, however, recognized this as a typical theme among urban craft breweries:

Like most breweries in Texas it is in a warehouse (B3, 2018).

Typical downtown warehouse brewery (B11, 2016).

Location is a warehouse in an old, fairly run-down neighborhood. (This is not a complaint, just an observation.) (B10, 2016)

In fact, many did not consider the location to be a detraction:

Don’t worry about being in a warehouse area, it’s perfectly comfortable (B7, 2017).

I would describe [it] as “industrial”, but in [a] good way (B10, 2018).

Upon arrival, nearly half of reviewers (45.45%) described the physical space of the experiencescape. This was the largest single category with 12.93% of all codes. Reviewers generally had low expectations:

[T]here are no frills here (B3, 2017).

The taproom is nothing fancy but it gets the job done (B5, 2016).

Nothing here is fancy but everything is terrific (B11, 2019).

In fact, some reviewers noted that this was as it should be:

With so many brew houses popping up all over Houston, good drinkable beer should be the focus over décor (B10, 2018).

You walk into the brewery/tasting room and it’s not super flashy, but you can see that they have all the essentials in place. Some breweries get way to caught up in their tasting rooms when they should be spending more time perfecting their craft…ya know? (B4, 2015).

It was essential that the physical space be clean and provide ample seating:

The brewery on site has few tables for folks to sit around in the tap room. So you better get there early on a Saturday if you wish to sit down and drink (B7, 2017).

You may want to bring folding chairs in case all the inside seating is taken. They put out large picnic benches inside the brew area (B1, 2017).

Weather was a related, if minor, factor (1.73% of codes). Houston has a sub-tropical climate. The city can get very hot and humid during the summer months (e.g., 94.5 degrees Fahrenheit/34.7 degrees Celsius on average during the month of August), and it receives an average of 49.77 inches/1264 mm of rain per year. Thus, sufficient indoor seating in climate-controlled spaces was also a priority.

The facility is open-air so you’re at the mercy of the weather. It was hot the day I went, and I wasn’t in shorts and a t-shirt (B11, 2016).

We went mid afternoon and it was just so uncomfortably hot inside, we couldn’t stay past one beer. The place is very big and there is lots of seating and games to play but they haven’t done enough to cool off the facility inside for this hot Houston weather. There is no air circulation except for a few small fans…Perhaps we’ll try again in the cooler months (B5, 2018).

I give 4 stars rather than 5, because there is simply no reprieve from the sweltering heat and humidity of Houston here (B11, 2016).

It was pouring down rain when we stopped by but fortunately for us, the brewery was not busy. There is limited seating (indoor and patio); however, we found a bench inside so we were protected from the rain (B10, 2017).

Conversely, Houston’s winter months are quite mild. During these times, visitors valued access to open-air spaces.

The location is perfect for enjoying the mild Houston weather later in the year as well and they often have the interior open to the outside (B7, 2016).

After detailing the physical space, reviewers’ narratives turned their attention to the social spaces of the experiencescape. Collectively, activities within these social spaces accounted for 9.88% of codes. Games played a prominent role in narratives. A significant attraction for one brewery was their vintage arcade games. Others had a variety of indoor and outdoor games (e.g., board games, trivia games, large-size Jenga, etc.):

We got to walk around the place and eventually ended up outside, which was huge and awesome. People were actually playing frisbee golf, hahaha! Heads up! They also had cornhole and other games (B11, 2018).

While visiting the area, a local resident suggested we try the brewery. The beer was good, but what kept [us] there on a cool rainy day was the indoor games (B5, 2019).

Beer tastings ranked second in importance in terms of codes in this category. Reviewers described their intention to purchase flights or small pours so that they were able to taste as many of the breweries’ offerings as they could:

Myself and my two friends each got flights to sample as many beers as we could since this was our first time. Among the 3 of us, we got every beer to try out (B7, 2017).

The processes associated with purchasing beer accounted for 1.73% of codes. In general, reviewers were disappointed if payment systems were restrictive (e.g., token packages), if the beer was served in plastic glasses, or if there were no taproom-only beers to try:

Didn’t want a souvenir glass so I bought 5 beer ‘tokens’ for 12 oz. pours in plastic cups… Plastic cups? Only a specific number of tokens at a fixed price? Is this a frat party, I thought to myself? (B11, 2016).

I stopped in here the other day to try a beer flight or [at] least some stuff I hadn’t seen back home (DFW area) before. Unfortunately, they had nothing special on, just the usual suspects (B4, 2017).

Additionally, reviewers noted activities such as listening to live music, watching live televised sporting events, and attending parties or other events (e.g., local fundraisers).

This is a happening, packed full place on Saturday afternoons before a ‘stros [Astros, Houston’s major league baseball team] game! (B11, 2017).

Food accounted for 5.69% of codes. None of the microbrewery/taproom breweries included in the sample had kitchens, but reviewers overwhelmingly appreciated the availability of food trucks on site primarily for snacking and expressed disappointment or frustration otherwise.

The only reason I give four stars [for the brewery rating] is because the food truck closed by 7:10 because they were out of fries (B11, 2017).

The only let-down was that no food trucks showed up on the day we went, which left a lot of us quite hungry (B9, 2016).

In the absence of on-site food options, reviewers noted options to bring their own food or have food delivered from nearby restaurants.

Confirming the findings of Francioni Kraftchick et al. (2014), brewery visitors valued the opportunity to hang out, relax, and socialize. Reviewers noted that they enjoyed the opportunity to hang out with the members of their own party, which was typically friends, partners, and families. However, reviewers also acknowledged opportunities to meet new people:

Nice people in a good atmosphere. It’s not packed with tvs or a bunch of games…People sit at tables and drink beer and talk to each other (B5, 2016).

Awesome place to kick back have a good beer and meet a mix bag of people (B11, 2016).

Other visitors were clearly a part of the experiencescape, with reviewers commenting:

It was pleasantly crowded upon our arrival (B7, 2017).

A large crowd made the visit more fun (B11, 2016).

Conversely, the absence of visitors from the experiencescape was noted:

It was very quiet and I think we were only two of four or five people there (B10, 2018).

The place was spacious and felt a bit empty when we were there (B11, 2018).

Supporting Rogerson and Collin’s (2015) findings that interacting with brewmasters plays an important role in beer tourism, reviewers also outlined their experiences with brewery staff (4.01% of codes). These interactions were overwhelmingly positive in response to good service and good information regarding the breweries’ beer:

The staff were courteous and very helpful when it came to choosing the beers to taste (B9, 2015).

The staff are very amenable in that they will happily let you sample the beers. They are very knowledgeable and informative if you ask for recommendations to suit your taste (B11, 2019).

Brewguy was working the taps when we were there – great conversations (B8, 2016).

When these interactions were limited, however, reviewers expressed disappointment and dissatisfaction:

Beertenders were very efficient, though harried to the point that I could grab a cup, but not talk beer to find out what I might enjoy sampling. Not their fault since it was a busy day. Just disappointed there was no one around to talk to from the brewery about beer (B11, 2016).

Finally, reviewers reflected on their impressions and feelings about the brewery experiencescape. Nearly one-third of reviewers explicitly discussed the breweries’ “atmosphere” (9.83% of codes), which was expressed in overwhelmingly positive terms:

This is not only a beer lover’s paradise, but good for a casual afternoon with friends in a very lively and convivial atmosphere (B11, 2019).

We had a couple of flights of beer at great prices and enjoyed the atmosphere. It’s certainly a place I’d go back to because I like the vibe (B6, 2018).

I was very pleasantly surprised with this establishment. Not only do they have great beers but it also has a great atmosphere…well worth a visit (B9, 2018).

Key codes in this category focused on a relaxed, chill, or comfortable taproom atmosphere that allowed visitors to unwind and enjoy hanging out as well as a friendly, welcoming, and inviting ambiance that helped facilitate social interactions with other visitors and/or brewery staff.

Friendly atmosphere and welcoming…Laid back and a good place to go to meet someone or have a gathering. Staff is very nice (B1, 2018).

In addition, reviewers, both those with children and those without, remarked on the family friendly (and even pet friendly) atmosphere the spaces that marked the breweries as casual places in which visitors feel comfortable spending time.

We came by on a Saturday morning with the toddler and dogs to enjoy the shade trees and games (B10, 2018).

The tap room has plenty of board games, trivia, etc., to make it a family friendly place. We went this past weekend and there were children of all different ages (B5, 2018).

Discussion

Theoretical contributions

Craft brewery taprooms have become popular tourism and leisure spaces, yet the experience of these spaces has received little scholarly attention (Nelson, 2021). Taprooms are more than ‘tastescapes’ (i.e., spaces that facilitate the consumption of the craft beer product). Thus, the holistic approach of the experiencescape concept provides unique insight into experiences in these spaces. To further the understanding of such experiences, this study sought to reconstruct the experiencescape from the unprompted visitor narratives in online travel reviews. This allows us to identify the aspects of the spaces that facilitate the consumption of the overall taproom experience.

In line with Chen’s (2022) findings from festival visitor interviews, the brewery visitor reviews used in this study organized their experience in stages. These brewery visitors began their narrative prior to arriving at the brewery. Visitors expected breweries to be located in industrial areas and/or warehouses. This setting is distinctive from that of other types of food- or beverage-scapes, yet it serves to immerse visitors in this particular experiencescape. A unique theme communicated through signs, symbols, or artefacts (i.e., local sports teams, music) can create an additional distinction for a brewery’s experiencescape. These themes have been given considerable attention in the craft beer literature (Holtkamp et al., 2016; Mathews and Patton, 2016; Schnell and Reese, 2003); however, they were only a minor topic in the visitor narratives used in this study.

Brewery visitors also included post-experience reflection in their narratives. Chen (2022) argues that this reflection has been missing from studies on experiencescape. For most reviewers, this reflection was summarized by their impressions of and feelings about the experiencescape. This intangible feeling indicated how comfortable visitors felt in the microbrewery taproom experiencescape. While this is clearly subjective, topics gleaned from the reviews suggest that visitors prioritize feeling welcome in the space, being surrounded by friendly people, relaxing, and having fun.

Managerial implications

While small-scale craft breweries typically focus on producing a high-quality craft beer product (Dunn and Wickham, 2016), microbreweries and taproom breweries have an opportunity to augment their business by creating positive, memorable on-site experiences (Bachman et al., 2021). Consuming the craft beer product is only one part of the taproom experiencescape; breweries must consider the taproom experience holistically to understand what visitors are looking for. This study offers insight into the elements that support positive and memorable experiences in the taproom experiencescape.

Brewers can organize the taproom’s physical space to create a social space for people to interact (O’Dell, 2005) and co-create experiences (Tresidder and Deakin, 2019). Brewery visitors do not expect a lavish environment, but they do prioritize comfort. Thus, brewers should ensure ample seating and appropriate climate controls. Breweries that maintain long picnic tables and other communal seating arrangements can encourage social interaction among visitors, from ‘hanging out’ with their own family or friends to meeting new people. A sub-set of visitors also value conversations with brewery staff (Rogerson and Collins, 2015). Most visitors were content to stand or sit at the bar for these conversations; however, there is an opportunity to create additional spaces for this interaction. As only 2.75% of visitors mentioned taking a formal brewery tour in their narrative, findings suggest that visitors prefer more informal interactions and conversations tailored to their own interests (e.g., recommendations based on personal preferences, sharing homebrewing experiences, etc.).

Taprooms appeal to visitors’ senses in a variety of ways. Brewing processes, sampling beers with diverse flavors, and snacking on food truck fare engage visitors’ senses of smell and taste. The presence of live entertainment (e.g., music) or televised sporting events tap into the senses of sight and sound. Games and other activities involve the sense of touch. Moreover, all these elements create an incentive for visitors to stay beyond the amount of time it takes to drink a beer. Yet, these elements of the taproom experience are often ad hoc and piecemeal. A more conscious experiencescape design process could connect these elements for a more immersive taproom experience, which has the potential to facilitate more memorable experiences (Blumenthal and Jensen, 2019).

Conclusion

Onorati and Giardullo (2020: 352) argue that online reviews of “recreational consumption experiences” have assumed an increasingly important role in consumption decisions. The opportunity to consume beer can be the motivating factor for people to visit microbrewery taprooms, but as one reviewer explained:

With as many breweries as there are popping up all over Houston, you either need to brew spectacular beer or have a great space and staff (all three is best) (B10, 2017).

Thus, it is the collective components of the microbrewery taproom experiencescape that facilitate positive, memorable experiences.

The visitor narratives examined here provide insight into the aspects of the microbrewery taproom experiencescape that shaped the reviewers’ visits. This insight has the potential to inform microbrewery/taproom brewery owners about visitors’ priorities for their consumptive experiences. Future areas of research will replicate the study in diverse contexts (e.g., major U.S. craft beer destinations such as Portland, Oregon, craft breweries in small cities such as Portland, Maine, and craft breweries in rural areas) to confirm results and identify key differences. However, the method is limited in its ability to delve deeper into key themes. To maintain the focus on experiences as remembered by visitors, future research could include a semi-structured interview design in which visitors recount stories of their experiences in their own words with follow-up questions as necessary to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the aspects of the microbrewery taproom experiencescape.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Velvet Nelson

Author Biography

Velvet Nelson is a Professor of Geography in the Department of Environmental and Geosciences at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas USA. She is a human geographer with a specialization in the geography of tourism.

References

Apardian

Reid

(2020) Going out for a pint: exploring the relationship between craft brewery locations and neighborhood walkability. Papers in Applied Geography 6: 240–255.

Bachman

Hull

Haecker

(2021) Millennials are not all the same: examining millennial craft brewery and winery visitors’ social involvement, self-image, and social return. International Journal of Tourism Research 23: 123–133.

Bamberg

(2012) Narrative analysis. In: Cooper

Comic

Long

Panter

Rindskopf

, et al. (eds) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Research Designs: Quantitative Qualitative Neuropsychological and Biological. Washington, USA: American Psychological Association, Vol. 2, 85–102.

Barajas

Boeing

Wartell

(2017) Neighborhood change, one pint at a time: the impact of local characteristics on craft breweries. In: Chapman

Lellock

Lippard

(eds) Untapped: Exploring the Cultural Dimensions Of Craft Beer. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press, 155–176.

Bitner

(1992) Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing 56: 57–71.

Björk

Kauppinen-Räisänen

(2019) Destination foodscape: A stage for travelers' food experience. Tourism Management 71: 466–475.

Blumenthal

Jensen

(2019) Consumer immersion in the experiencescape of managed visitor attractions: the nature of the immersion process and the role of involvement. Tourism Management Perspectives 30: 159–170.

Bosangit

Hibbert

McCabe

(2015) “If I was going to die I should at least be having fun”: travel blogs, meaning and tourist experience. Annals of Tourism Research 55: 1–14.

Bradley

Maples

Lewis

, et al. (2017) Beer tourism in central kentucky: identifying on-site experience preferences for kentucky brewery tourists. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism 2: 153–161.

10.

Brewers Association (2022a) Craft beer industry market segments. Available at: https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics-and-data/craft-beer-industry-market-segments/ (accessed 5 January 2022).

11.

Brewers Association (2022b) National beer sales and production data. Available at: https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics-and-data/national-beer-stats/(accessed 5 January 2022).

12.

Bruwer

Alant

(2009) The hedonic nature of wine tourism consumption: an experiential view. International Journal of Wine Business Research 21: 235–257.

13.

Bruwer

Rueger-Muck

(2019) Wine tourism and hedonic experience: a motivation-based experiential view. Tourism and Hospitality Research 19: 488–502.

14.

Çakar

(2018) Experiences of visitors to gallipoli, a nostalgia-themed dark tourism destination: an insight from tripadvisor. International Journal of Tourism Cities 4: 98–109.

15.

Carter

(2016) Where are the enslaved?: tripadvisor and the narrative landscapes of southern plantation museums. Journal of Heritage Tourism 11: 235–249.

16.

Carvalho

Kastenholz

João Carneiro

(2021) Interaction as a central element of co- creative wine tourism experiences – evidence from bairrada, a Portuguese wine-producing region. Sustainability 13: 9374. DOI: 10.3390/su13169374

17.

Chen

(2022) Visualizing experiencescape – from the art of intangible cultural heritage. Current Issues in Tourism 25: 559–578.

18.

Chen

Suntikul

King

(2020a) Constructing an intangible cultural heritage experiencescape: the case of the feast of the drunken dragon (Macau). Tourism Management Perspectives 34: 100659. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100659

19.

Chen

Suntikul

King

(2020b) Research on tourism experiencescapes: the journey from art to science. Current Issues in Tourism 23: 1407–1425.

20.

Clandinin

Caine

(2008) Narrative inquiry. In: Given

(ed) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 542–545.

21.

de Freitas Coelho

de Sevilha Gosling

de Almedia

ASA

(2018) Tourism experiences: core processes of memorable trips. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 37: 11–22.

22.

Dunn

Kregor

(2014) Making love in a canoe no longer? Tourism and the emergence of the craft beer movement in California. In: Tourism and hospitality in the contemporary world: Trends, changes and complexity, Brisbane, 10–13th Feburary, 190–198. Brisbane: School of Tourism, The University of Queensland.

23.

Dunn

Wickham

(2016) Craft brewery tourism best-practices: a research agenda. Annals of Tourism Research 56: 140–142.

24.

Flack

(1997) American microbreweries and neolocalism: “Ale-ing” for a sense of place. Journal of Cultural Geography 16: 37–53.

25.

Fletchall

(2016) Place-making through beer-drinking: a case study of montana’s craft breweries. Geographical Review 106: 539–566.

26.

Fossgard

Fredman

(2019) Dimensions in the nature-based tourism experiencescape: an explorative analysis. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 28: 100219. DOI: 10.1016/j.jort.2019.04.001

27.

Francioni Kraftchick

Byrd

Canziani

, et al. (2014) Understanding beer tourist motivation. Tourism Management Perspectives 12: 41–47.

28.

Fusté-Forné

(2021) Robot chefs in gastronomy tourism: what’s on the menu? Tourism Management Perspectives 37: 100774. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100774

29.

Fusté-Forné

Berno

(2016) Food tourism in New Zealand: canterbury’s foodscapes. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism 2: 71–86.

30.

Garavaglia

Swinnen

(2017) The craft beer revolution: an international perspective. Choices 32: 1–9.

31.

Graefe

Mowen

Graefe

(2018) Craft beer enthusiasts’ support for neolocalism and environmental causes. In: Slocum

Kline

Cavaliere

(eds) Craft Beverage And Tourism, Volume 2: Environmental, Societal, And Marketing Implications. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 27–47.

32.

Gunasekar

Das

Dixit

, et al. (2021) Wine-experiencescape and tourist satisfaction: through the lens of online reviews. Journal of Foodservice Business Research 25: 684–701. DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2021.2006039

33.

Gursoy

Akova

Atsiz

(2021) Understanding the heritage experience: a content analysis of online reviews of world heritage sites in istanbul. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 20: 311–334. DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2021.1937193

34.

Handayani

(2021) Foodstagramming of solo dining experiencescape: the fear of missing out. International Journal of Food System Dynamics 12: 83–94.

35.

Hindy

(2014) The Craft Beer Revolution: How a Band of Microbrewers Is Transforming the World’s Favorite Drink. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

36.

Holtkamp

Shelton

Daly

, et al. (2016) Assessing neolocalims in microbreweries. Papers in Applied Geography 2: 66–78.

37.

Jiang

(2022) The role of natural soundscape in nature-based tourism experience: an extension of the stimulus organism-response model. Current Issues in Tourism 25: 707–726.

38.

Jurafsky

Chahuneau

Routledge

, et al. (2014) Narrative framing of consumer sentiment in online restaurant reviews. First Monday 19. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v19i4.4944

39.

Kandampully

Bilgihan

Amer

(2022) Linking servicescape and experiencescape: creating a collective focus for the service industry. Journal of Service Management. DOI: 10.1108/JOSM-08-2021-0301

40.

Kankhuni

Ngwira

(2021) Overland tourists’ natural soundscape perceptions: influences on experience, satisfaction, and electronic word-of-mouth. Tourism Recreation Research 47(6): 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/02508281.2021.1878653

41.

Kastenholz

João Carneiro

Peizeira Marques

, et al. (2012) Understanding and managing the rural tourism experience – the case of a historical village in Portugal. Tourism Management Perspectives 4: 207–214.

42.

Kladou

Mavragani

(2015) Assessing destination image: an online marketing approach and the case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 4: 187–193.

43.

Ledikwe

(2021) Determinants of behavioural intention towards travel applications in an emerging African economy: a perspective on the hospitality industry. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure 10: 1882–1895.

44.

Lozano-Monterrubio

Huertas

(2020) The image of Barcelona in online travel reviews during 2017 catalan independence process. Communication and Society 33: 33–49.

45.

Margaryan

Fossgard

(2020) Visual staging of nature-based experiencescapes: perspectives from norwegian tourism and event sectors. In: Fredman

Haukeland

(eds) Nordic Perspectives on Nature-Based Tourism from Place-Based Resources to Value-Added Experiences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 250–262.

46.

Mathews

Patton

(2016) Exploring place marketing by American microbreweries: neolocal expressions of ethnicity and race. Journal of Cultural Geography 33: 275–309.

47.

McLeay

Lichy

Major

(2019) Co-creation of the ski-chalet community experiencescape. Tourism Management 74: 413–424.

48.

Mei

Hågensen

AMS

Kristiansen

(2020) Storytelling through experiencescape: creating unique stories and extraordinary experiences in farm tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research 20: 93–104.

49.

Mitchell

Hall

McIntosh

(2000) Wine tourism and consumer behaviour. In: Hall

Sharples

Cambourne

, et al. (eds) Wine Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 115–135.

50.

Mody

Suess

Lehto

(2017) The accommodation experiencescape: A comparative assessment of hotels and Airbnb. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29: 2377–2404.

51.

Mossberg

Eide

(2017) Storytelling and meal experience concepts. European Planning Studies 25: 1184–1199.

52.

Murray

Kline

(2015) Rural tourism and the craft beer experience: factors influencing brand loyalty in rural North Carolina, USA. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23: 1198–1216.

53.

Myles

Breen

(2018) (Micro)movements and microbrew: on craft beer, tourism trails, and material transformations in three urban industrial sites. In: Slocum

Kline

Cavaliere

(eds) Craft Beverages and Tourism, Volume 2: Environmental, Societal, and Marketing Implications. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 159–170.

54.

Naylor

(2014) The craft beer revolution: how hops got hop. the guardian 13 august. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/13/craft-beer-revolution-hops-brewers-flavours (accessed 11 May 2022).

55.

Nelson

(2021) Consuming local: product, place, and experience in visitor reviews of urban texas craft breweries. Leisure Studies 40: 480–494.

56.

Ngo Su

Johnson

O’Mahony

(2020) Will foodies travel for food? incorporating food travel motivation and destination foodscape into the theory of planned behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 25: 1012–1028.

57.

O’Dell

(2005) Experiencescapes: blurring borders and testing connections. In: O’Dell

Billing

(eds) Experiencescapes: Tourism, Culture, and Economy. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 11–33.

58.

Onorati

Giardullo

(2020) Social media as taste re-mediators: emerging patterns of food taste on tripadvisor. Food, Culture and Society 23: 347–365.

59.

Ooi

(2005) A theory of tourism experiences: the management of attention. In: O’Dell

Billing

(eds) Experiencescapes: Tourism, Culture, and Economy. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 51–68.

60.

Pine

Gilmore

(1999) The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

61.

Piramanayagam

Sud

Seal

(2020) Relationship between tourists’ local food experiencescape, satisfaction and behavioural intention. Antolia 31: 316–330.

62.

Quadri-Felitti

Fiore

(2016) Wine tourism suppliers’ and visitors’ experiential priorities. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28: 397–417.

63.

Richards

(2021) Evolving research perspectives on food and gastronomic experiences in tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 33: 1037–1058.

64.

Rickly-Boyd

(2009) The tourist narrative. Tourist Studies 9: 259–280.

65.

Rickly

McCabe

(2017) Authenticity for tourism design and experience. In: Fesenmaier

Xiang

(eds) Design Science in Tourism: Tourism on the Verge. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 55–68.

66.

Riessman

(1993) Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

67.

Riessman

(2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.

68.

Rogerson

Collins

KJE

(2015) Beer tourism in South Africa: emergence and contemporary directions. Nordic Journal of African Studies 24: 241–258.

69.

Schnell

Reese

(2003) Microbreweries as tools of local identity. Journal of Cultural Geography 21: 45–69.

70.

Sekhon

Roy

(2015) Experiencescape. In: Dahlgaard-Park

(ed) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Quality and the Service Economy. Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 222–224.

71.

Servidio

Ruffolo

(2016) Exploring the relationship between emotions and memorable tourism experiences through narratives. Tourism Management Perspectives 20: 151–160.

72.

Slocum

(2016) Understanding tourism support for a craft beer trail: the case of Loudon County, Virginia. Tourism Planning & Development 13: 292–309.

73.

Sthapit

(2018) A netnographic examination of tourists’ memorable hotel experiences. Antolia 29: 108–128.

74.

Sthapit

Björk

(2019) Relative contributions of souvenirs on memorability of a trip experience and revisit intention: a study of visitors to rovaniemi, Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 19: 1–26.

75.

Stoleriu

Brochado

Rusu

, et al. (2019) Analyses of visitors’ experiences in a natural world heritage site based on tripadvisor reviews. Visitor Studies 22: 192–212.

76.

Taylor

Jr DiPietro

(2020) Assessing consumer perceptions of neolocalism: making a case for microbreweries as place-based brands. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 61: 183–198.

77.

Thomas

(2006) A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27: 237–246.

78.

Thompson

(2018) The Atlantic 19 January. Craft Beer Is the Strangest, Happiest Economic Story in America. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/01/craft-beer-industry/550850/(accessed 11 May 2022).

79.

Tresidder

Deakin

(2019) Historic buildings and the creation of experiencescapes: looking to the past for future success. Journal of Tourism Futures 5: 193–201.

80.

Tripadvisor (2017) About Tripadvisor. Available at: https://tripadvisor.mediaroom.com/us-about-us (accessed 27 January 2022).

81.

Van Laer

Edson Escalas

Ludwig

, et al. (2019) What happens in vegas stays on tripadvisor? a theory and technique to understand narrativity in consumer reviews. Journal of Consumer Research 46: 267–285.

82.

Vásquez

(2012) Narrativity and involvement in online consumer reviews: the case of tripadvisor. Narrative Inquiry 22: 105–121.

83.

Vespestad

Hansen

(2020) Shaping climbers’ experiencescapes: the influence of history on the climbing experience. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 44: 109–133.

84.

Volo

(2010) Bloggers’ reported tourist experiences: their utility as a tourism data source and their effect on prospective tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing 16: 297–311.

85.

Watson

(2018) Brewery visits grow beer: what can the whole industry learn? Brewers association. Available at: https://www.brewersassociation.org/insights/brewery-visits-grow-beer-you-can-too/(accessed 5 January 2022).

86.

Webster

Mertova

(2007) Using Narrative Inquiry as a Research Method: An Introduction to Using Critical Event Narrative Analysis in Research on Learning and Teaching. London, UK: Routledge.

87.

Withers

(2017) The impact and implications of craft beer research: an interdisciplinary literature review. In: Kline

Slocum

Cavaliere

(eds) Craft beverage and tourism, volume 1: The rise of breweries and distilleries in the United States. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 11–24.

88.

Zare

(2019) Cultural influences on memorable tourism experiences. Antolia 30: 316–327.