Neolocalism and Activating the Urban Landscape

Neolocalism and Activating the Urban Landscape:

Economics, Social Networks and Creation of Place

April A. Watson

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

August 2016

Acknowledgements

I would like thank my committee chair, Dr. Maria Fadiman. Her encouragement, enthusiasm, and input made this dissertation possible. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Charles Roberts, Dr. Clifford Brown and Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, as well as the Departments of Geosciences, Anthropology, and Urban and Regional

Planning. The kindness and support given me by these departments was invaluable.

Acknowledgements are also due to my husband Monty and my sister Erin. I honestly could not have finished if they had not helped me. I also want to show gratitude to my family and friends, for their encouragement and humor over the last three years. Finally, I would like to thank all of the craft brewers who took time out of their busy schedules to again and again answer my questions and introduce me to the craft beer world. In particular, I would like to thank: John from Funky Buddha, Leigh from 3 Daughters, Julie from Pair o Dice, Devon from 7venth Sun, Luis from Wynwood Brewing, Matt Manthe,

Felonice and Matt from Accomplice, Ron from Veterans United and Greg from Rapp

Brewing. You all are rock stars in my book.

Abstract Author: April Watson

Title: Neolocalism and Activating the Urban Landscape: Economics,

Social Networks and Creation of Place

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Maria Fadiman

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2016

This work examined the role of the craft brewers of Florida in creating alternative economies. This work argues that craft brewers function in ways that they can create a space in which other, smaller entities might then take advantage. Craft breweries' expansion, and continued success rests on the ability of the brewer to harness the power of transformation, the prism effect, or the refaceting of a space with different meanings.

Craft breweries meet many of Jacobs' (1961), as stated in her seminal work, conditions for diversity in the city, especially in the role of self-government. Craft brewers function as informal forms of government for communities, by making smaller entities more visible, by serving as a warrior and weaver for political action in the city, and offering subversive defiance, by which they subtly challenge the dominant disconnected economic structure. Craft breweries serve as a way to create an embedded economy, or as a way of grounding local businesses, social issues, and individual actors together. In this way, the research addressed deeper ethical issues that transcend the idea of craft brewing in

general, that the success of craft brewers reflects a form of activism, and a visible way for individuals to circumvent the global processes which left them disengaged in their community.

Dedication

To Monty and Jack

My light in dark places.

Neolocalism and Activating the Urban Landscape:

Economics, Social Networks and Creation of Place

List of Tables ...... xiii

List of Figures ...... xiv

Chapter One: Introduction ...... 1

Introduction ...... 1

Beer is universal ...... 1

Foundations of craft brewing ...... 3

Beer defined ...... 3

History of beer in the USA ...... 4

Craft brewery vs. Microbrewery vs. Brewpub ...... 7

Research hypotheses and theoretical context ...... 11

Chapter Two: Background and Theoretical Context ...... 17

Literature Review ...... 17

Landscape geography ...... 17

Neolocalism ...... 19

Microbreweries: what is local? ...... 21

To share the “local”: images, names, and places...... 23

viii

Microbrewery deserts ...... 27

Florida as a unique geographic region ...... 29

Beer in Florida ...... 32

Innovation diffusion/spatial economies ...... 36

The Urban Landscape...... 39

Economics, Politics, and Culture ...... 39

The City landscape: Jacobs' seminal work ...... 40

Clusters: geographic interconnected businesses and institutions ...... 43

Networks ...... 44

Globalized economy vs. “Embedded” economy...... 45

Urban political ecology ...... 48

Chapter Three: Methods ...... 51

Research methodologies and analysis ...... 51

Research study sites and population ...... 51

Data Collection ...... 53

Data Analysis Methodologies ...... 60

Diffusion Analysis ...... 60

Network analysis ...... 64

Content and landscape analysis ...... 67

Chapter Four: Results ...... 71

Establishment ...... 71

Adoption of the Craft Brewing Innovation ...... 71

Hierarchical spatial diffusion...... 71

Graphical depictions of the craft brewery expansion in Florida ...... 75

Establishment and expansion ...... 80

Understanding the role of cultural landscapes ...... 80

Individual identity and Innovation adoption ...... 80

Cultural landscapes: regional and personal characteristics that prohibit or help

growth ...... 84

The role of the natural landscape in establishment ...... 90

The role of history and settlement in brewery establishment and identity

creation ...... 93

The role of cultural identity in establishment and development ...... 97

Unique commonalities in identity creation: celestial beings and the particular

use of local products ...... 100

Zoning and Establishment ...... 102

Identity in establishment ...... 106

Personal identity in craft brewers ...... 106

Gender ...... 107

From scientist to the science of craft brewing ...... 109

The creation of a collaboration network, from 2013 to 2015...... 111

The emergence of regional leaders in the craft brewers' network ...... 115

Brewer landscape "refaceting" ...... 121

Building social capital ...... 125

Transforming from individual to connected: the role of the festival ...... 127

The craft brewer as a political warrior and as a weaver ...... 134

Chapter Five: Discussion ...... 137

Diffusion and Innovation ...... 137

Regionality and the influence of place on adoption of innovation ...... 140

The Brewpub: the front runner and the conservative choice ...... 142

The introduction of the microbrewery: the right place and the right time ...... 143

Moving from homebrewer to neolocalist ...... 147

Building an embedded economy ...... 147

The network: power, influence, and participation ...... 148

Regional leaders ...... 151

The power of transformation ...... 155

Leadership ...... 156

Diversity ...... 156

Transforming the landscape through action and celebration ...... 160

Density and diversity: the hallmarks of craft brewers ...... 163

The role for the neolocalist in the city system ...... 164

Recasting the Neolocal ...... 167

Chapter Six: Conclusions ...... 171

Economic embeddedness ...... 171

Traditional vs. embedded economics ...... 171

Measures of success ...... 172

Self government ...... 173

Deeper connections outside the local ...... 176

Revitalization and gentrification ...... 176

Big Beer takes notice ...... 177

Craft breweries: an end note ...... 179

Appendices ...... 181

Appendix A: List of Breweries By Region ...... 182

Appendix B: Information for the Diffusion Analysis models ...... 189

Appendix C: Network analysis tables ...... 190

Appendix D: Craft Beer Festivals and attendees in Florida 2015 ...... 279

Bibliography ...... 299

xii

List of Tables

Table 1. Total Ranked Number of Craft Breweries and breweries per capita,

South Region, 2012 (data derived from the Craft Brewers' Association and

U.S. Census Bureau) ...... 35

Table 2. Interview questions for semi-structured interviews ...... 57

Table 3. Codes used in content analysis ...... 68

Table 4. Summary of Methodologies and analyses ...... 69

Table 5. Early Innovators ...... 81

Table 6. The eighty-seven members of the Florida Brewers Guild, the date of their founding, the region in which it is situated, and the type of craft brewery...... 82

Table 7. The number of craft breweries per region, and how many fall into each of

Roger's (1995) categories. (Numbers current as of the end of 2015)...... 87

Table 8. Frequency of content themes in FBG imagery and beer names...... 89

Table 9. Frequency of Interviewee responses ...... 107

Table 10. Breweries in the FBG with no connection to the collaboration network...... 119

Table 11. Regional non-network connections: total of the non-network collaborations recorded during the observation period...... 121

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Local economy vs. Capitalist economy (Korten, 2000) ...... 46

Figure 2. Study Area: Particular focus on South and Central regions of Florida ...... 52

Figure 3. Roger's diffusion of innovation theory (1995) ...... 63

Figure 4. Open vs. Closed networks (Borgatti et al., 2009) ...... 65

Figure 5. FBG members in FL as of 2003. This is based on their foundings rather than the date of the membership in the guild (Map by April Watson, 2016.

Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne; HERE; MapmyIndia)...... 72

Figure 6. The growth of FBG breweries from the years 2003 to 2011 (Map by

April Watson, 2016. Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne; HERE;

MapmyIndia)...... 73

Figure 7. The growth in Florida Brewers Guild members up until the year 2015

(Map by April Watson, 2016. Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne; HERE;

MapmyIndia)...... 74

Figure 8. The actual observed growth rate of Florida craft breweries which are also members of the Florida Brewers Guild...... 76

Figure 9. Graph of the mixed influence model of innovation diffusion (equation 2 shown). The red line indicates the exponential trendline, the green line shows the polynomial trendline...... 77

xiv

Figure 10. Graph of the internal influence model of innovation diffusion

(equation 3 shown). The red line indicates the exponential trendline, the green line shows the polynomial trendline...... 78

Figure 11. Graph of the innovation models and the actual growth of FBG breweries. Red lines indicate an exponential trendline, green is the polynomial trendline...... 79

Figure 12. Graph comparing observed FL brewery foundings to innovation models, with the exponential trendline shown...... 80

Figure 13. Regional analysis with the zoning categories for the FBG breweries shown (Map by April Watson, 2016. Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne;

HERE; MapmyIndia) ...... 85

Figure 14. Grayton Beer, Images from Google Earth (2016) and Grayton Beer

Company (used with permission from Grayton Beer Company (2016))...... 91

Figure 15. Orlando Brewing focuses on the agricultural identity of Central

Florida, yet the landscape reveals the industrial/urban nature of the city

Figure 16. A1A Ale Works: an example of historic zoning in North region.

The building was built in 1869 (Google Earth, 2016)...... 94

Figure 17. Example of historic revitalized building in industrial area: Green

Figure 18. Example of an industrial landscape in South region, Due South

Figure 19. Example of the transformation of the landscape: Wynwood Brewing

Figure 20. The mysterious Sola of Concrete Beach, shown here from a package of

Concrete Beach pilsner (Logo used with permission. Photograph by April Watson.

Figure 21. Funky Buddha brewery (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright

2016 by April Watson)...... 103

Figure 23: Collaboration network ...... 112

Figure 24. Collaboration network of FBG breweries by degree, regions are abbreviated: N-North, S-South, C-Central, W-West...... 113

Figure 25. Collaboration network by closeness centrality, regions are abbreviated: N-North, S-South, C-Central, W-West...... 115

Figure 26. Collaboration Network by betweenness centrality, regions are abbreviated: N-North, S-South, C-Central, W-West...... 116

Figure 27. Collaboration network by eigenvector centrality...... 118

Figure 28. Hops for Heroes event: taking over spaces and changing them

Figure 29. Sign displayed at a craft beer festival illustrating an award winning brewery, demonstrating how festivals give new brewers cues as to the

xvi

importance of the more established brewers (Photographed by April Watson.

Figure 30. Festival network by degree, regions are abbreviated by letter:

N-North, S-South, C-Central, and W-West...... 129

Figure 31. Festivals network by between centrality, regions are abbreviated by letter: N-North, S-South, C-Central, and W-West...... 131

Figure 32. Festivals network by eigenvector centrality, regions are abbreviated by letter: N-North, S-South, C-Central, and W-West...... 132

Figure 33. Craft brewers make visible the smaller community groups around them

Figure 34. The role of the craft brewer as a warrior and as a weaver...... 167

Figure 35. Creating the neolocalist: the pathways...... 170

xvii

Chapter One: Introduction

Introduction

The United States and the rest of the world have experienced a sudden increase in the growth of the craft brewing industry. What makes this phenomenon an interesting and significant field of study are the ramifications of this growth. This project focused on the craft brewer as an individual, and investigates the economic, political, and social aspects of the craft beer expansion. Several studies in the realms of geography, sociology, urban planning and economics have considered the craft brewery expansion (E.g. Carroll and

Swaminathan, 2000; Flack, 1997; Swinnen, 2011; Tremblay and Tremblay, 2009), yet few have attempted a synthesis of these ideas nor have they looked at one of the essential components of the microbrewery movement: the brewers themselves.

Beer is universal

Since humans first began cultivating grains, they brewed some form of beer. The form of the beer changed based on place and what crops were available. In about 1800

B.C. in Mesopotamia, Sumerians composed the “hymn to Ninkasi,” the goddess of beer, revealing just how important beer was in the ancient world (Sewell, 2014). Brewing has been suggested as a possibly motivator for grain domestication in the Agricultural

Revolution, extending (at least circumstantially) the evidence for brewing back to the

Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic in southwest Asia (Hayden et al., 2013). Some anthropologists and historians have theorized that beer was brewed as a cheap and

portable source of carbohydrates (Dillivan, 2012). Because it provided an effective way to convey nutrients and calories, beer has even been attributed as a factor in the establishment of cities. Centralized grain production was needed to make the beer; settling in towns gave people the opportunity to create the frothy brew (Dillivan, 2012).

Beer is dynamic as well. The basic recipe has been re-written over and over again, fluidly changing from the fermented cassava drink of South America to the hops-heavy

India Pale Ales of the United States to the hearty stouts and porters of England and

Germany. As those in 1800 B.C. drank for nourishment; other early people may have brewed beers specifically to get a carbohydrate heavy source of "liquid bread.” People drink to mark rituals; frequent mention is made in the literature of “drinking occasions.”

People have a strong connection to beer, so much so that when the Pilgrims came to the

New World in 1492, one of the first letters back to England complained about the lack of good beer, and the need for a brewery. When colonists started the first small towns in what would become the United States, the brewery (and bar) also functioned as church and meeting place (Sismondo, 2011).

Drinking may reflect status. Beer has been, at various times, the drink of the people, and the drink of the elite, and fulfilling nearly every role in between. The choice of one type of beer over another conveys identity. Cost of the beer, the style, even the brand tells the story of the person who drinks it. People favor one brand over another or they choose one type or style of beer. Indeed, by both weight and volume, beer is the most important alcoholic beverage, surpassing both spirits and wine in total consumption throughout the world (Grigg, 2004).

Where people drink beer and with whom is another marker of identity. The breweries and brewpubs themselves have their own role in the community. People drink in their home, with family, with friends, at bars, restaurants, and increasingly, brewpubs and microbreweries. Bars and breweries are also the places to which people escape when there is trouble, such as when hurricanes or storms strike. In 2004, for example,

Hurricane Charley struck the small town of Punta Gorda, Florida. Charley was predicted to make landfall in Tampa Bay up until two hours before the storm made landfall, when it suddenly turned east. When Charley, a Category 4 storm, tore through the area, nearly every business in the county sustained major damage and closed – except The Celtic Ray, a local bar, despite losing most of their roof. For most people, the bar “was a refuge during Hurricane Charley (NBC 2, 2007).” The notable feature, again and again, is that bars, and breweries, can serve their communities in more ways than one.

Places not traditionally associated with beer consumption, such as China and

Russia, also, have historic roots of beer brewing and consumption. New places are garnering more and more of the world’s share of beer consumption, such as in India. Yet this distribution is uneven, with perhaps a combination of religion, climate, and socioeconomic status playing a huge role in who decides to drink beer (Swinnen,

2011).Craft breweries are a resurging phenomenon in the world culture that has social and economic implications across the landscape. The global community is coming to realize and appreciate that craft beer is “more than just a beer.”

Foundations of craft brewing

Beer defined. In the United States, the love of a “good beer” is nowhere more evident than in the decline and renaissance of craft breweries. In 1873, the United States

was home to more than 4,131 microbreweries. A century later, in 1973, there were only

122. Yet the situation has changed: by 2013, 2,822 breweries were operating in the

United States. Of these, 2,768 are considered “craft breweries.” 1,412 of that number are

“microbreweries” producing less than 15,000 barrels per year. Of the overall $100 billion beer market, $14.3 billion is the result of craft beer sales. While beer sales in general were down in the United States, craft beer sales were up 17.2% (Craft Brewers

Association, 2014).

An element to understanding those numbers is recognizing how craft brewers connect with one another; in order to do so, one needs to understand what brewers create: beer. What is beer? In the United States, beer is a fermented beverage composed typically of four main ingredients: barley, hops, yeast, and water; the base ingredients of most commercially produced beers (Grigg, 2004). Other styles of beer include beers made from different cereal grains. Africa is the primary home of these cereal-based beers

(Grigg, 2004). The inclusion of “adjuncts” at various phases of brewing (often during the boiling phase) changes the flavor and style of the beer.

The craft brew story has two sides: the product, and the people. In order to understand how and why craft breweries originated, died off, and reemerged as a trend, one must understand the history of brewing beer in the United States, and this story begins before the label “United States” even existed.

History of beer in the USA. Prior to European settlement, native peoples of both

North and South America brewed beer from maize. Indigenous peoples brewed both tesgüino and chicha, corn-based fermented drinks, in pre-Columbian times (Sismondo,

2011). The Aztecs brewed a maguey-based beer (pulque). Only 20 years after the fall of

Tenochtitlan, Spanish conquistadors founded America’s first brewery in Mexico. This brewery was not successful at first because excessive beer drinking was prohibited by authorities and people preferred the existing pre-Hispanic alcoholic beverages. However, shortly after the proclamation of Mexico’s Independence from Spain, local beer became increasingly popular, particularly that of a brewer named Tuallion, and his brand named

“the Hospice of the Poor,” because his brewery was located on Revillagigedo Street, where there was also a homeless shelter (Explorando Mexico, 2015).

In 1602, colonists from Britain brought ale style beers to what is now the United

States following the British traditions and featuring British types of beer: pale ales, stouts, and porters (Flack, 1997). Prior to Prohibition, 4,131 breweries operated in the

United States (Craft Brewers Association, 2014a). However, as more German immigrants came to the United States in the mid-1800's, there emerged a growing trend towards lagers. Early ale style beers depended on British barley for production. The immigration from the “beer belt” countries of Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia, among others, brought new strains of barley and hops to the beer scene, including a new type: lagers. Lager yeasts, by definition, “produce fewer by-product characters than ale yeast which allows for other flavors to pull through, such as hops (Beer Advocate,

2014).”

Americans responded to the new beer type enthusiastically; giving rise to the beer titans of today: Miller, Pabst, Schlitz, Anheuser, Busch, and Blatz, among others (Ogle,

2006). As the beer titans grew in popularity, so did one specific type of beer: the light lager. Americans’ tastes grew acquainted with (or “accustomed to”) this light-adjunct

brew and soon other types of stronger beer all but disappeared from the market. This, coupled with Prohibition, strongly impacted smaller breweries, which were still producing the stronger, British style ales. By the 1970’s, there were only 44 microbreweries in the United States (Craft Brewers Association, 2014b). This was in part due to legal restrictions put in place after prohibition. To protect the consumer from alcoholism, the law required that a distributor, rather than a brewer, sell beer. This set up the three tier system, in which beer is produced, then sold to a distributor, then sold to retail locations such as bars. This largely benefited the national brewers, as these larger brewers squeezed the smaller craft brewers out of the market by controlling distribution

(Bagniski, 2008:3). The result of the three tier system was the eventual loss of smaller craft breweries from the American landscape.

However, in the 1970’s, the brewery trend once again shifted, as homebrewers began producing different, specialized types of beers. The renaissance of the microbrewery movement in the U.S. has its roots in California, where a homebrewer founded The New Albion Brewery. As the microbrewery movement seemed to die, a few individuals with a passion for homebrewing started creating distinct styles not available on the American market. Homebrewers began expanding in the 1980's, and by the

1990's, there was an explosion of growth in the microbrewery industry, propelled by the homebrewer. Most of these brewers were rejecting the established beer patterns of the beer titans. They wanted to offer something more “real.” As Ogle (2006:315) put it,

“Real brewers wear rubber boots; fake ones wear suits.” A real brewer, then, or a craft brewer, is active in the creation and production of the product.

In the 1980’s, the beer scene continued to change. The homebrewers of the 1970’s found favor with friends and locals, enough so that microbreweries began to emerge, brewing styles of beer that were non-existent on the big beer market, especially darker, more bitter beers. The 1990's witnessed an explosion of growth for the craft brewer.

Volume growth in terms of craft beer consumption went from 35% in 1991 to 58% in

1995 (Craft Brewers Association, 2014b). This trend reversed a bit in the late 1990's to the early 2000's, but again accelerated in 2004 (Craft Brewers Association, 2014b).

Schnell and Reese (2003) argued that craft breweries experienced this downturn in part because they “lost touch with their local roots.” The authors suppose that while some craft brewers entered the business because of their passion for brewing, many jumped on the bandwagon because they saw dollar signs in every glass. Those that survived the downturn (and even more recent explosion) “tended to be those that returned to their home base.” (Schnell and Reese, 2003:53).

Craft brewery vs. Microbrewery vs. Brewpub. Craft brewers make clear distinctions between themselves and large, mass produced brewers. Any research aimed at understanding craft brewers would do well to recognize the differences between craft brewers and mass production brewers. As the craft beer scene began to expand, brewers needed a way to first distinguish themselves in a market dominated by the beer titans and a way to share their product with consumers. Brewers struggled with the very definition of the word “craft.” Finally, with the advent of the Craft Brewers Association, craft brewers determined an industry standard for the term. The vehicle by which craft beer gets sold also separates craft brewers from mass producers of beer.

There are different categories of beer production that brewers often use interchangeably and yet have distinct meanings. The Craft Brewers Association defines a craft brewer by three aspects: 1) small: An American craft brewery is small, brewing less than 6 million barrels of beer per year. 2) Independent: A craft brewery is owned and controlled independently. Alcohol beverage industry members can own no more than

25% of the controlling shares of the brewery if they are not a craft brewery themselves.

3) Traditional: a craft brewery must have the majority of its total beer volume derived from traditional or innovative methods. Additionally, the Craft Brewers Association states that the hallmarks of a craft brewery are its small size, its use of innovation in technique and ingredients, the interpretation of historic styles of beer, the brewery’s involvement in philanthropic events, volunteerism, involvement in the community, personal connections to the customers, maintenance of independence and integrity, and its freedom from the controlling interest of a non-craft brewer. Finally, most craft breweries are within 10 miles of their principal customers (Craft Brewers Association,

2014a).

A microbrewery differs from a craft brewery only in terms of production. Flack

(1997:41) defined a microbrewery as a brewery that produces 70 to 90,000 barrels of beer per year. Numbers and scale of production may have changed somewhat in the 15 years since Flack’s study, yet this scale seems to fit with the definitions many microbreweries give for themselves. The Craft Brewers Association (2014a) defines a microbrewery as one that produces less than 15,000 barrels of beer. Those breweries that produced 15,001 barrels to 6 million barrels of beer are considered regional breweries. Still other experts argue that some of the difference between craft breweries and microbreweries is the scale

of influence. For example, MacLeod (2013) suggested that a craft brewery has further reaching distribution whereas a microbrewery typically only distributes in-state (or even just in the brewery’s taproom).

Further complicating the picture are the brewpubs. Brewpubs are breweries whose beer is primarily brewed for the purpose of distribution in a restaurant. Beer for the brewpub is generally stored in on-site service tanks which are directly connected to the taps in the restaurant/bar. In terms of the functionality of the brewery, the brewpub functions much as the microbrewery does: the brewery has limited scale production with distribution in a distinctly local place.

Both “brewpubs” and “microbreweries” may fit the Craft Brewers’ definition of

“craft brewery” thus the overarching term “craft brewery” encompasses all these scales of production, distribution, and influence, as long as the brewer keeps the key ideals of small size, independence, and traditional or innovative (not mass production) methods.

Where the consumption of the beer occurs marks a divergence between mass produced beers and craft beers. Although mass produced beer consumption may occur in a “place” such as a bar or restaurant, often this place lies far from the brewery, the

“place” where the beer gets made. Craft beer consumption, on the other hand, occurs in the same place as craft beer production: at the microbrewery or brewpub. Microbreweries may have limited offsite sales, but often these sales occur very close to the brewery

(generally, within 3 counties). Place, then, marks a distinctive hallmark of the craft brewer: production and consumption are geographically close to one another.

There has also been continuing growth in beer festivals. With the “Oktoberfest” tradition celebrating the annual hops harvest leading the charge, the number and size of festivals purely dedicated to beer has grown. For example, the Craft Brewers Association promotes “Craft Beer Week” in which craft brewers across the U.S celebrate beer (Craft

Brewers Association, 2014c).

Tremblay and Tremblay (2009) considered the larger brewing industry including growth and contraction of mass producers of beer. The authors also studied patterns of political policy and how this affected the economics of the brewing industry. They found that state and federal policies aimed at breweries had a significant impact on brewery success. For example, a bill approved in 1979 by President Carter made it legal for individuals to brew beer at home. However, state-levied excise taxes might drive smaller brewing companies under, such as in Hawaii (Tremblay and Tremblay, 2009:120).

Indeed, the campaign against excessive excise taxes, among other policy restrictions, factors in many state guilds, which seek to assist craft brewers with political actions as well as economic assistance (Craft Brewers Association, 2015).

Florida makes an interesting case amongst craft brewery growth because of the disparity in craft brewery numbers. In the past three years, Florida saw notable expansion in volume, growing by almost ten times in the past three years (VinePair, 2015).

Historically, there was a lag in breweries in Florida (Bagniski and Bell, 2011). In 2014, the state ranked 43rd in breweries per capita; however, the economic impact of the craft brewery in the state was $2.056 million, placing Florida 8th in the nation (Craft Brewers

Association, 2014c). In a state of high migration gains (Florida witnessed a net gain of

84% from 2010 to 2012, with significant increases in foreign-born populations, (Gibson,

2014) and a significant impact from the tourism industry, producing $51.14 billion in

2012 according to Florida Tax Watch (2012), Florida is unique in both economics and demographics amongst the southern States. In 2011, Bagniski and Bell noted that the

Southern region ranks among the lowest in total craft breweries. Florida appears in the top fifth of states on total craft breweries, but, as noted above, ranks 43rd in breweries per capita. Some as of yet unidentified factors play a role in the differences between total numbers and economic impact.

Research hypotheses and theoretical context

The question arises of just why beer is so important, and why it has changed so disproportionately. A product that is widespread, yet unevenly distributed, warrants further study. Much research has focused on the consumers’ love of beer: why people drink what they drink, and where. In particular, geographers have explored the rise of craft beer and breweries. However, little work has explored the production end of the craft beer story from the perspective of the brewer. Rather, the previous research has had an etic perspective, and has incorporated few in-person interviews or observations. Work that has included in-person interviews focused on the consumers of the beer rather than the producers of the beer (e.g. Flack, 1997; Schnell and Reese 2003; and Dillivan 2012, among others). While the reliance on surveys and statistical data gave a strong idea of the role of microbreweries in their communities, the lack of emic research on microbreweries is a gap in the current research.

In addition, earlier works that did include an emic focus were limited in scope

(e.g. Dillivan, 2012) and focused solely on the brewery itself. There have been few academic studies of either food-specific or industry-specific events related to craft beer,

and how these events might strengthen sense of place and a sense of community by building the “neolocal” (Schnell and Reese, 2012). Previous research has not addressed the ways craft brewers reach out to their local communities via festivals and events.

These events include food specific events (in which food or drink is the focus) as well as charity events. Brewers also participate in industry-specific events. The public may attend industry-specific events, but the intended guests are brewers themselves. Industry- specific events are ways that brewers strengthen bonds between each other.

Most of the preceding work on craft breweries had not included spatial analysis at a specific state level. Spatial analysis to this point has mostly concentrated on national brewery distribution patterns or inter-state patterns (e.g. Bagniski and Bell, 2006; Flack,

1997; Schnell and Reese, 2013). Baginski (2006) explored inter-state patterns of brewers, and utilized resource-partition theory to explain the patterns; however, this theory did not fully flesh out why some areas appear different than others, particularly

Florida. Bagniski used multilinear regression to explain why some areas attract more craft breweries; however, only a few of the variables had moderate statistical correlation.

Moreover, differences in state law and regulation makes states the natural units of analysis and at the same time complicates inter-state analysis.

Earlier research has largely focused on where craft breweries are located, or the purely physical location. This work intends to examine why craft brewers chose a particular location, and how that choice manifests itself on the landscape. The current research explores this question guided by the theories of landscape geography (e.g.

Lynch, 1960; Sauer, 1941; Tuan, 1980, 1991). Landscape geography examines the cultural meaning behind both the physical, tangible space (the site) and the created,

intangible “sense of place” (the situation). The investigator argues that the physical space and created place of Florida craft breweries reflects “thick” or latent levels of meaning between the cultural, political and economic realms underlying craft beer growth.

Theoretical research on political ecology and cultural economics offers guidance on the examination of this discourse, including ideas on personal and social identity, political and ecological interactions, and cultural political economy. Disparate theoretical literature often considers issues of identity, politics, ecology, and economics; however, they are not yet united by a common master frame. This work examines how each of these deeper levels of interaction manifest in both a tangible and intangible way in the landscape of craft brewing in Florida.

This research addresses the problems left by gaps in the other studies cited. The ultimate question, to which much thought has been put, asks why the craft brewery trend has been so successful. Even craft brewers themselves have trouble answering this question (Sparhawk, 2016). The current project addressed smaller components of this larger question:

Research Question One: why has growth in Florida been so uneven? What is the

role of economics, identity, and politics in the establishment of craft breweries in

Florida?

Research Question Two: what does the landscape of craft brewing in Florida

look like, and why? What is the role of identity (both of the brewer

and the regional identity in the success of expansion of Florida craft

breweries.

Research Question Three: What role can or does the craft brewery play in a

larger urban economic and social system?

This work explores the theory of neolocalism and broader theories such as urban geography and embedded economy. Neolocalism, first proposed by Shortridge (1996), and later expounded on by Flack (1997) and Schnell and Reese (2003), offers an explanation of why people in communities develop deep place attachment. Rather than the rootlessness of Tuan (1994), instead Shortridge suggested that people might develop new roots. Flack expanded on this theory by suggesting that microbreweries are an expression of the new desire for roots, and a conscious rejection of a globalized society.

This project seeks to recast the theory of neolocalism as more robust, with more testable methodology and with deeper political, economic underpinnings, and a fuller connection to the role of personal identity to the spread of the craft brewery throughout the United States. Geographers have explored the growing craft brewery movement, suggesting that the renaissance amongst microbreweries represents a return to place attachment, or the neolocal. Flack (1997) and Schnell and Reese (2003; 2014) produced expansive work on the roots of the craft brewery trend, as reflections of deeper longing for an attachment to a place. This research explores the strengths of the explanatory power of neolocalism to understanding the social and cultural meanings of the craft beer expansion. This is also a part that has not yet been explored in the craft brewery movement: personal identities. However, this theory as of yet lacks a strong political or economic dimension.

Landscape geography examines the cultural meaning behind both the physical, tangible space (the site) and the created, intangible “sense of place” (the situation).

Geographers further have examined craft breweries in the United States as a reflection of neolocalism yet have not investigated deeper levels of meaning which the landscape, or the microbrewery may reflect. This work tests the idea that Florida craft breweries exhibit the qualities of neolocalism in ways that are influenced by and reflect the political, cultural, and economic spheres of their local area, as well as testing the impact microbreweries have on the economic, political and social realms of their area. This research investigates the role of identity, both of the brewers themselves, and their regional identity, or how they present themselves and the characteristics of the region in which they situate themselves, through the lens of landscape geography.

The present study also explores the physical and created landscape of brewers in

Florida and how that landscape reflects politics, identity and history; investigates the spatial and social relationships between craft brewers in Florida by studying the intra- and inter-regional differences (and similarities) within Florida; and examines the efforts of Florida craft brewers in subtly challenging the economic and political system around them. Although microbrewery deserts have filled in throughout the Southern United

States, craft brewery expansion has moved in a less steady way in the southeastern U.S.

Rather than a slow spread, Florida continues to witness the innovation equivalent of an explosion of craft breweries, yet scholars have thus far been unable to explain why this uneven growth is occurring. This growth is acting as a part of political and economic currents of individuals and their communities.

This research addresses the underlying needs of people to maintain connections with one another as well as the drive to find new forms of economic and political identity and ways of challenging the currently established systems. Craft breweries may represent one way that people find space for change in an increasingly globalized and standardized world. Often people in cities (and rural environments) are disconnected from decision making processes that guide the political and economic realities of the space they occupy.

In this investigation, the investigator uncovers the ways craft breweries give people power over those types of decisions.

Chapter Two: Background and Theoretical Context

Literature Review

Landscape geography. Trends in landscape geography have fluctuated from purely studying the physical landscape (Sauer, 1941) to intellectualizing landscapes as arrangements of symbols and signs. The explanatory thread of landscape geography develops the metaphor of the physical and cultural landscape as a ' text' to be read. The exploration of landscape as text is similar to the way Clifford Geertz (1973) defines anthropology as the reading of cultural texts. Geertz describes the discovery of numerous layers of significance in ethnography as a process of 'thick description', with both outward indicators of culture and the deeper meanings behind it (Cosgrove and Jackson,

1987). The cultural landscape represents a bounded area in which human activities and the environment intersect at the natural, economic, and cultural level. As Farina (2000) puts it, cultural landscapes, regardless of the activities that play out on them, reflect the initial landscape conditions and the society that changes in that landscape.

The importance of places and spaces are a part of landscape analysis. As Trudeau

(2006:437) states, “landscape represents an external, detached and objective view of social space…In contrast, a sense of place represents the internal, personal and subjective view of social space.” The concepts of the landscape and sense of place represent the tangible, physical location and the more abstract “place” that is created through a combination of symbols and cultural meaning, politics, economics, and personal identity.

Landscapes might not only represent those who join in an activity; the landscape can also reflect the exclusion or even criminalization of certain groups, those who cannot join or live in a space. This concept often is codified in legal terms, for example, land use zoning. Zoning ordinances enforce a “particular geographic imagination on a bounded space (Trudeau, 2006)." Thus, landscape analysis may also reveal hidden inequalities and political issues in a given geographic area.

Landscape investigation also delves into the realm of sustainability and sustainability science. As mentioned above, cultural landscapes study the junction of environment, economics, and culture. The history of the term “sustainability” is far too lengthy to explore here; however, it does bear on landscape study. Sustainability essentially touches on the same three core elements of cultural landscapes: environment, economics, and culture. One of the most popularly accepted definitions of sustainability comes from the United Nations’ World Commission on Environment and Development

(WCED). The report characterizes sustainable development as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Wu, 2013:1001).” Sustainability must achieve balance, then, between human needs and environmental integrity. Sustainability scientists have worked in recent years to define a unit of study for sustainability and this unit is often the landscape. The main difference between landscape sustainability science and cultural landscape analysis rests on the focus: sustainability scientists focus on development for the future (with an eye to the past and the present), while the cultural geographer focuses on the present state of affairs (while still addressing the past and future). The end methodology, however, is largely the same: understanding the interaction of natural and human driven activities.

Neolocalism. What is neolocalism, and why is it important to microbreweries? In

1996, James Shortridge wrote his groundbreaking piece, “Keeping Tabs on Kansas:

Reflections on Regionally Based Field Study”. Shortridge emphasized the need for geographers to conduct field studies, rather than a “desktop survey.” He cautioned against generalizing about a region based purely on studies done remotely. Based on his observations of Kansas, Shortridge noted how outsiders and residents of Kansas had different descriptions of Kansas. So, why the etic-emic contrast? That was the pivotal thrust of Shortridge’s argument: neolocalism. He described this phenomenon as a seeking out of provincial traditions and local connections by residents, in a reaction to the breakdown of traditional ties to a “place.” Shortridge emphasized the need for geographers (and other academics) to study the day-to-day lives of people who inhabit places. By doing so, people may avoid labeling one another, as was evidenced by

Shortridge’s Kansas studies (1996).

Geographers have largely examined the growth of the craft beer industry through the lens of neolocalism. Geographer Wes Flack took the concept of neolocalism from broader geographic contexts on sense of place research, and applied it to the growing expansion of microbreweries in the United States, which he attributed to the concept of neolocalism (Flack, 1997). He theorized that the success of the microbrewery movement was rooted in aspects of the American psyche. Flack built on Tuan (1979), who suggested that the highly mobile nature of the American way of life has led to contempt for national culture and instead cultivated a desire for the uniquely local. This need is not just for beer, as Schnell and Reese (2003) remarked; instead it is a conscious rejection of globalization and the formation of place attachment.

Schnell and Reese (2003; 2013) updated Flack’s 1997 work by examining the conscious ways that microbreweries create a sense of place. The authors hypothesized that breweries consciously fostered a sense of place by utilizing imagery which invoked the characteristics of their geographic location, either by natural imagery (such as a hurricane or animals), history, legends (such as unique historical figures), or other unique place identifiers. Schnell and Reese contend that the sense of place that microbreweries produce is a conscious effort, more than a physical space, i.e. the brewery itself. Sense of place can extend beyond physical walls to the imagery, labels, and beer ingredients used by a particular craft brewery. Such acts of “place attachment” enrich the “invisible landscape” or the created landscape that can extend far beyond the boundaries of a physical space (Schnell and Reese, 2003, p. 57). For example, the John Brown Ale crafted in Lawrence, KS features a prominent local figure on its bottles, as well as the presence of a tornado in the background. The authors contend that such tactics create

“Kansas” for the local as well as for the beer drinker far away. Brewers deliberately use such devices to create something uniquely local.

In 2014, Schnell and Reese appraised their previous work and offered a clearer definition of “neolocalism” by combining the previous definition with Patchwork Nation community type definitions, created by Chinni and Gimpel (2010), to clarify where neolocal areas are likely to arise. Chinni and Gimpel (2010) used principal components analysis on several social and economic qualities of U.S. counties to derive 12 county types, each with specific characteristics. Schnell and Reese found that microbreweries are most likely to occur in areas that Chinni and Gimpel define as “Boom Towns” or those that are fast growing, both in size and diversity. Schnell and Reese previously used

demographics of U.S. counties and compared this to locations of craft breweries, and found that craft brewery locations tend to attract (or be attracted by) relatively wealthy, urban, whiter (and somewhat more Hispanic) and, interestingly, more mobile communities (smaller percentage of the population is born in that region). Yet the authors caution that neither analysis seems to fully explain the craft brewery phenomena. Many of the communities defined by Chinni and Gimpel have characteristics that should attract neolocalists (microbreweries) and yet they are underrepresented. Schnell and Reese conclude that the myriad of social, economic, and political factors might be too much for the simplifications of this scale (Schnell and Reese, 2014:171-172).

Microbreweries: what is local? Flack, as well as Schnell and Reese, posited that microbreweries created a new local in a specific place. However, what is local? Schnell

(2013) defined “local” as having distinct characteristics. This extends not just to microbreweries, but any business contributing to a local economy. Schnell and Reese suggest that this sense of place is not just where the microbreweries are but instead

“things that one creates and actively maintains… and must be viewed as active, conscious processes. (2003: 47).” Thus, any business that contributes to the sense of place must, to be considered local, be active. How local entities achieve this is through promoting a sense of place attachment, by establishing local connections through conscious effort

(Schnell 2013:56). Microbreweries must go an extra step to create this rootedness.

Brewers often import their raw ingredients from national or global sources, thus the active nature of the brewing process is critical to creating a sense of the local: using authentic stories and the art of brewing itself. This active nature, however, depends on a key component: what is local? And, more importantly: how do people perceive local?

Schnell argues that “local” should be defined in terms of how neolocalists perceive

“local.” He found eight themes amongst neolocalists’ definitions of local: local as non- global; local as transparent; local as non-corporate; local as unique; local as environmentally responsible; local as empowered and self-sufficient; local as community-building; local as authentic; and local as all of the above (p. 66-71).

Local as non-global and local as transparent are, according to Schnell, not precisely non-global or transparent; rather, these concepts reflect the opposites of perceptions of transnational companies. For example, a “local” company is personal, democratic, and unique, as opposed to homogenous, faceless, and corporate.

Transparency refers to the process behind the products. Global supply chains mask the entire process of production, from raw material to finished product. “Local” companies do just the opposite, so that their process is clear to the consumer. Non-corporate refers to ownership rights held in the hands of small business owners, lacking in a global corporate sponsor or controlling interest. As Schnell remarks, one of the things that drives the neolocalists is not so much anti-globalization as anti-corporation. By being non- corporate, then, the “local” business is unique. In this way, local businesses create a sense of place, by “offering things that can’t be found in other places…(Schnell, 2013:67.)”

Schnell acknowledges that “local as environmentally responsible” may not always be true. However, the distinctive characteristic of the “local” business is its personal touch.

The effects of local businesses are felt immediately. Local businesses are often more environmentally responsible, because they are connected to a place. This is also true of their self-sufficiency. Local businesses are, according to Schnell, more likely to act in

ways that are good for the community in which they are located. The local business promotes self-sufficiency amongst the community members.

“Local” businesses also promote community building. Transactions are not only between producer and consumer, but “between neighbors and friends (Schnell,

2013:69).” People support people. This is essential to understanding the ways “local” businesses interact, not only with one another, but with their customers as well: with respect. This community building aspect is directly correlated with the next theme of

“local”: local as authentic. “Local” is real. A local business consciously uses products which represent the place from which they come. Finally, a “local” business may be all of the above. Many local entities actually embody all these characteristics in one way or another.

Schnell also identified another key element of the neolocalists: networking. These concepts are crucial to understanding the role microbreweries play in creating place attachment as well as how the brewers cooperate amongst each other. By networking with one another, local businesses produce a feedback loop, in which they cooperate with one another, which fosters community-building, which in turn increases the level of attraction to be local.

To share the “local”: images, names, and places. Schnell and Reese (2003) decided to explore the reasons behind the beer names chosen by the microbreweries to see if these were rooted in a sense of place. They sent surveys to 1,500 microbreweries throughout the United States; 400 microbreweries responded. The authors attempted to create a content analysis to discern regional patterns in names. There was no simple way

to quantify the myriad images and names the microbreweries chose for their brews. They discovered that instead the microbreweries were creating a sense of place that was unique to that place and that place alone. The breweries conducted quite a bit of research in order to find names that conveyed the unique rich history or “flavor” of the place in which they were. For example, the brewers of Saw Mill River Brewery in New York delved into their local history to come up with their beer names. A public relations firm the brewery hired suggested “lumber-related names” which was not at all what the brewery wanted.

Instead, they chose names that reflected “insider” stories; these stories are unknown to outsiders but intimately familiar to locals. The sense of belonging was also conveyed through the beer. Rooted names and images produce a sense of belonging to the newcomer (tourist) and a sense of place for the insider.

The authors found that beer names were rarely named after the city or modern lifestyles but rather historic or “blue collar” jobs or images. Brewers also paid attention to seasonality with beers, brewing when the “season was right.” Nature images dominated the area from the Rocky Mountains to the West Coast, whereas nature images from the eastern section of the country had more human structures in them. Schnell and Reese discovered that labels reflected the natural environment surrounding the brewery.

Schnell and Reese also found that some microbreweries were deeply entrenched in their communities and promoting other businesses. Beer names may reflect support for local causes. Sports (but only minor league) and local legends may also play into beer names and images.

Physical location also plays a role in making a “local” place. Schnell and Reese found that many microbreweries are located in older buildings, perhaps with historic significance. Further, they noted that most microbreweries share the story of the building itself, as it passed from business to business; some microbreweries may even name beers from the Pre-Prohibition era. All these efforts lend a sense of continuity to the brewery; even though most are newly established. Breweries go out of their way, it seems, to root them in place. Beer names and images reveal that microbreweries are creating a unique sense of place that can be replicated in no other location. It creates an “insider’s club” that in a way revives oral story-telling traditions. This in turn promotes those “local” characteristics as authentic and unique: unique stories, unique places, and authentic images. Dillivan (2012) found this same trend in several microbreweries in Chicago and

Indiana. In the seven microbreweries he surveyed, he found that four of them were in historic buildings, five had beer names or images that were specifically rooted in the local, and six participated in specifically local profit sharing (e.g. hiring local contractors, or buying local product) or community building.

Tuan (1991) and Bird (2002) emphasized this story-telling tradition and the importance of “legends” in creating a sense of the local place. Schnell and Reese (2003) found that in naming beers and using imagery, breweries often rely on local legends or stories to invoke that place. Bird (2002) contends that “through our tales about place, we mark out spatial boundaries…The tale confirms that this piece of space actually means something…” (p. 523). Thus beer names, images, and the brewery itself become deeply embedded in the place they are located by invoking these stories. This need to locate a space in a “real” place in turn may explain why tourists are drawn to microbreweries.

Local histories shared by locals turn spatial features into something with meaning. As

Bird noted, “Stories, in the fleeting moments of their telling, link individuals (2002, p.544).” A microbrewery, then, by its imagery, beer names, and physical location turns a trip by a tourist into a trip to a “real” place.

Another way in which local businesses may root themselves in a place is by creating a sense of community. As mentioned previously, to be considered “local,” an entity may engage in community-building. Dillivan (2012) noted that while sense of place and sense of community might be used interchangeably, they are two correlated but separate ideas. Sense of place may refer to cultural, physical and/or social aspects of a space. However, much as a “place” may encompass the physical and ephemeral,

“community” might be defined as either the geographical location (a town, city, etc.) or a human relationship network, not bound by a physical place (McMillan and Chavas,

1986). The authors proposed that a “sense of community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together (1986:9).”

The community, according to McMillan and Chavas, contains four essential elements: membership (who is in the group and who is not); influence (power over the members); fulfillment of needs (a sense of belonging); and, finally, a shared emotional connection.

Much as Schnell and Reese (2003) noted, to create a sense of community there must be some active effort to encourage those feelings of belonging.

Manzo and Perkins (2006) point out that the bonds with a community are not only those internal feelings of membership, but also the results of external communal practices. Participation in meetings, groups, and shared communal events helps to invoke

this sense of community. “Local” entities might utilize both a physical place and relationship networks to foster that sense of community. Dillivan (2012) observed that microbreweries actively encourage this sense of community by fostering a shared appreciation of beer, which in turn engaged shared interests and a sense of belonging.

Microbreweries may also create or aid in community revitalization movements.

As stated by Dillivan (2012), craft breweries are creating a sense of community. Manzo and Perkins (2006) suggest that communities inspire both bondedness and rootedness.

These attachments include both the individual and the “external, social processes (Manzo and Perkins, 2006: 338).” In turn, these feelings of attachment play an important function in neighborhood revitalization. Microbreweries are likely to occupy historic buildings, as well as creating an influx of jobs and tourism; this leads to the “multiplier effect” described by Sims (2009). More jobs and tourists equal more money, which in turn can lead to investment in a neighborhood. The strong feelings of community inspired by microbreweries also foster the desire to revitalize a neighborhood. Community bondedness can also feed out to other local businesses, which may lead to further neighborhood ties. As Manzo and Perkins (2006) point out, these bonds of attachment to a place and a community motivate people because people are “motivated to seek, stay in, protect, and improve places that are meaningful to them” (p.347).Sense of community invokes engagement by local residents, which then leads to revitalization efforts and perhaps, environmental awareness.

Microbrewery deserts. Neolocalism is a reaction against globalization and homogenization. However, not every part of the United States has embraced the neolocal movement, at least as that movement is expressed through microbreweries. Craft

breweries have had substantial growth in some areas of the country and not in others.

Flack (1997) called these areas without microbreweries “microbrewery deserts.” Both

Flack (1997) and Schnell and Reese (2003) noted that the preponderance of microbreweries are found in the Northeastern and the Western U.S., especially

California. Bagniski and Bell (2006) decided to explore why there was such an underrepresentation of microbreweries in the South region, as defined by the U.S. Census

Bureau. Bagniski and Bell (2006) and Bagniski (2008) explored numerous variables in relation to the consumer and the preponderance of the microbreweries per capita per state. In other words: what factors attracted microbreweries to a particular state?

Bagniski and Bell (2006) explored the South region and discovered that there was moderate correlation to sundry factors related to creativity, receptivity to new ideas, and education, among other variables, and the occurrence of microbreweries in that state.

Bagniski (2008) explored these factors in more depth in terms of the national level, the state level, and the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s). Bagniski and Bell (2006) found that although the South was notable for its lack of microbreweries, two MSA’s,

Charlottesville, Virginia and Asheville, North Carolina, had more microbreweries per capita than the authors had predicted. They noted that tourism is prevalent in both these areas. Additionally, they noticed that Florida in particular is unique in the South region as ranking in the top fifth of all states for total number of breweries, although still lagging in craft breweries per capita. Schnell and Reese saw Florida, as well as the rest of the

“Sunbelt” as part of a noticeable change from the microbrewery “deserts” Flack pointed out in 1997.

Bagniski and Bell (2006) are not the only authors to note the lack of craft breweries in the South. Gohmann (2015) noted that in the South, the amount of breweries is negatively connected with higher campaign contributions from big breweries, the number of beer distributors per capita, and the number of Southern Baptists. Elsewhere in the country, the connections are inconsequential or positive.

Across the United States, macro beer producers give to the campaigns of politicians who will maintain policies that discourage rivalry from smaller breweries. For example, the growler and bottle size restrictions in Florida, taxes on breweries, and laws that thwart breweries from selling their kegs directly to consumers (instead of through a distributor). Gohmann goes on to note that the South has a voting bloc, the Baptists, whose ethical attitude against alcohol happens to coincide with macro producers' wishes to keep new competitors from getting started in the business. The support of Baptists provides Southern politicians with a rationale to deter brewers that politicians in other regions don't have. As a result, the states with a significant number of Baptists tend to have the fewest breweries. This finding is very similar to a paper presented by Watson

(2015) which explored the connection between craft breweries, religious inclination, and political affiliation.

Florida as a unique geographic region. The cultural origins of Florida differ significantly from other areas of the United States, creating a distinct cultural mosaic on the landscape. When Zelinsky (1992) wrote his Cultural Geography of the United States, he noted then that Florida was unique. He even noted that "We still have no clear picture of the emergent regional culture...with no raison d'être except the presence of people

(p.135)." This unique cultural geography reflects the historical settlement of Florida,

which differed significantly from that of the rest of the United States. The state's first

European settlers hailed from Spain rather than Great Britain or Germany. Development occurred initially in North Florida, then moved primarily down the coastline. Florida prior to the Civil War was divided unofficially into three regions: East Florida, from the

Atlantic Ocean to the Suwannee River; Middle Florida, between the Suwannee and the

Apalachicola Rivers; and West Florida, from the Apalachicola to the Perdido River. The southern region of the territory (south of present-day Gainesville) was lightly settled by whites. Agriculture formed the basis of the territory's economy. Plantations were concentrated in Middle Florida, and their owners established the political tone for all of

Florida until after the Civil War (Florida Department of State, 2016).

Florida remained largely unsettled until the late 1880’s, when Henry Flagler ran his railroad through Florida. This railroad helped create what Zelinksy (1992) called the

U-shaped boundary, with significant development occurring on the coasts of Florida and the interior left undeveloped until well into the twentieth century. North Florida remained the primary location for Native Floridians as expansion began, with much of that population identifying as "Southern" and as Southern Baptist. The coasts, particularly the

Southern coasts, identified with no particular church, perhaps as a result of the constant influx of new settlers throughout the twentieth century (Lamme and Meindl, 2002).

Latin Americans have made up a significant part of the population growth in

Florida. In the 1880’s, Vicente Martinez Ybor, Gavino Gutierrez, Vicente Martinez Ybor, and Ignacio Haya enter the scene. These immigrants from Cuba settled in the Tampa Bay region and began producing cigars. Much of the historic landscape of Tampa originated at that time due directly to Ybor and his cigar factories. In 1891, Henry Plant built his

Tampa Bay Hotel and the Tampa Bay area emerged as an area of importance. Population growth occurred mainly in larger city centers such as Tampa, Jacksonville, and Miami, and hugged the coasts, only extending inward about ten to twenty miles (Lamme and

Meindl, 2002). In 1893, the Revolutionary Jose Martí delivered a speech in an outdoor area in front of the V.M. Ybor Cigar Factory. More than 10,000 Cubans punctuated

Martí's speech with cries of "Cuba Libre!" (Free Cuba!). Tampa was no stranger to the roots of revolution, change, and political action.

Into the twentieth century, population growth in Florida accelerated rapidly as a result of migration, particularly from Northerners and foreign born individuals. Florida began to take on vernacular regional characteristics based on an influx of new growth.

The southeast coast became known as the Gold Coast due to its marketing as a tourist destination, and the settlement of wealthy northerners. Midwesterners tended to settle on the West Coast of Florida. The panhandle attracted agricultural Southerners, and remained the area where Native Floridians settled. Latin American migrants moved to either Miami or Tampa (Lamme and Meindl, 2002).

As a result of the differential settling of the state, there emerged pronounced regional differences throughout the state. North Florida retained much of the Southern identity, with religious conservatism and agricultural production. Residents refer to this area as the Bible Belt, the Panhandle and/or the Redneck Riviera (Lamme and

Oldakowski, 2007). The Jacksonville area, however, stood out somewhat from the rest of north Florida, with the label of the "First Coast." Lamme and Oldakowsi (2007) argued this label reflected this region's deep attachment to Florida but also a way to separate itself from more unflattering labels such as "South Georgia." As the authors reiterate, this

is "extremely important for this region in terms of attracting businesses, residents, and visitors (p.334)." Central Florida took on a much different character as a result of the arrival of people from the Midwest United States as well as from Latin America (among other places). This region, as stated previously, lacked a distinct religious background, with tourism making up the dominant economic activity. Tampa anchors the area, with the surrounding regions giving distinct labels for themselves in order to differentiate between each one and the Tampa Bay area. Pinellas County, for example, almost exclusively refers to itself as the Gulf Coast. Finally, South Florida has discrete regions marked by the Everglades and the "Gold Coast." The Everglades area indicates the large geographic boundary of the Florida Everglades, with relatively sparse population settlement, largely centered on agricultural production. The Gold Coast, as mentioned above, refers to the high cost of living in the Miami-Dade area as well as the "glittering lifestyle" of its residents. This area has also witnessed important instability in terms of racial relationships and immigration concerns. The wealthy lifestyle here is also associated with political conservatism, with tourism making up the dominant economic activity (Lamme and Oldakowski, 2007).

Beer in Florida. Settlement in Florida also influenced beer in Florida. Spain lacked a strong beer brewing tradition, thus beer brewing was not popular initially

(Walen, 2014). The environment of Florida is also a contributing factor to the lack of beer culture. Beer was never popular in the Southern states, possibly due to the fact that beer tends to spoil in warm weather (Sewell, 2014). However, in 1896, Ybor and a group of investors founded The Florida Brewing Company, with a capacity of 25,000 barrels.

As with much early beer production, the creation of a brewery depended on a clean water

source. The Florida Brewing Company capitalized on nearby Government Springs for fresh water. The Florida Brewing Company made La Tropical Ale and Bock, and was the leading exporter of beer from the U.S. to Cuba. At their peak, they were producing over

80,000 barrels of beer a year. By 1900, they shipped more beer to Cuba than any other

American brewer (DeNote, 2014). As Prohibition occurred in the United States, Tampa and Miami remained some of the “wettest” cities during Prohibition. In fact, FBC had

12,600 gallons in the tanks when raided and finally shut down. Reinforced by dishonesty at every level, law enforcement understanding to their cause, and encouraged by the public, the illegal brewing, distilling, transportation, and consumption of alcoholic beverages continued in Florida. With the end of Prohibition and the passing of the 21st

Amendment, states gained control over the production of alcohol. Florida moved to become a three tier state, which meant that brewers could not sell their product directly to consumers, but instead producers must sell their product to distributors, who in turn sell beer to retailers, where the consumers can purchase alcohol.

In the 1950's and 1960's, large brewers moved into Florida, and smaller brewers began to sell or fold. Schlitz moved to Tampa in 1958 and Anheuser Busch in 1959. In

1961, The Florida Brewing Company closed its doors. Around the same time, Miller looked to move to Florida but chose Georgia instead. Florida retaliated by instituting the

Bottle Size law of 1965, which outlawed non-standard beer bottle sizes. Standard sizes included eight, twelve, sixteen and thirty-two ounce sizes, Miller at the time made seven ounce bottles. This, in effect, blocked imported beers (DeNote, 2014).

In Florida, Anheuser Busch was granted a “tourism exemption” that allowed

Busch to distribute beer on-site directly to consumers. This exemption paved the way for

craft breweries. By 2001, craft brewers organized enough to push to change the bottle size law, which they won. However, this change came at a price: no containers between

32 ounces and 128 ounces could be sold, eliminating the standard 64-ounce growler

(DeNote, 2014).

As of 2012, Florida was ranked number 3 in total microbreweries for the South region, and number 2 in total microbreweries for the South Atlantic division (Table 1).

Though Florida lags in breweries per capita, that number continues to grow.

Table 1. Total Ranked Number of Craft Breweries and breweries per capita, South Region, 2012 (data derived from the Craft Brewers' Association and U.S. Census Bureau) State Name Total Number of Craft Breweries per capita License to self-

Breweries distribute

Texas 84 1:299,352 Yes

North Carolina 70 1:133,621 Yes

Florida 57 1:329,848 No

Virginia 48 1:166,688 Yes

Missouri 45 1:133,087 No

Maryland 30 1:192,452 Yes

Tennessee 30 1:211,537 Yes

Georgia 22 1:440,332 No

South Carolina 16 1:289,085 No

Kentucky 14 1:309,955 No

Arkansas 10 1:291,592 Yes

Oklahoma 10 1:375,135 Yes

Alabama 10 1:477,974 No

Delaware 9 1:99,770 No

Louisiana 8 1:566,672 No

District of Columbia 6 1:100,287 No

West Virginia 5 1:370,599 Yes; limited

Mississippi 3 1:989,089 No

Considerations of the role tourism plays also make Florida a critical state in the microbrewery movement. If tourism is one of the most important factors, then clearly

Florida should be among the top states for microbreweries. The contribution of tourism to the state’s GDP from tourism is huge; $51.14 billion (Florida TaxWatch, 2013). It is likely that Florida is the number one tourist destination in the United States. However,

Bagniski (2008), in his metropolitan area analysis of microbreweries per state, found that

Miami did not rank high in regard to number of craft breweries. He suggested that this was due to the role of culture, specifically “Latino” culture, in Miami. He posited that

Latin Americans are less likely to consume craft beers. He further suggested that Miami may lag in microbreweries due to its placement in the South, which Bagniski and Bell

(2006) as noted earlier, considered a “microbrewery desert.”

Innovation diffusion/spatial economies. When an innovation is introduced into a geographic area, three discernible segments of acceptance follow, irrespective of the size of the region. Stage One is the spatial dissemination phase, which is typified by adoptions of that innovation by apparently haphazard geographic pattern of adopters, with the preponderance situated near the diffusion center, but many at major distances away.

Stage Two is the spatial diffusion process phase, which involves a continuing spread of adoptions outward from the vicinity of the diffusing center, but is also characterized by a significant “neighborhood effect;” the adoption of a new innovation by neighbors of the original innovator. Stage Three, the maximum penetration phase, happens as holes are filled by the rest of the adopting population and the diffusion process is concluded

(Allaway et al., 2003).

The dissemination of information on the network can move in various ways, both in a contagious or cascade (a “snowball” effect) or in a hierarchical fashion. Sociologists and medical geographers have explained the diffusion of ideas (and disease) using central

place theory (hierarchical diffusion). In central place theory, cities are categorized based on population, services, and interconnectedness. Cities are then ranked according to size.

Thus, a number one ranked city should receive new ideas first, and so on, until the idea has diffused down to the smallest city (Ruan et al., 2006). Bagniski (2008) noted that large cities, already noted for tolerance of new ideas and innovations, adopted craft breweries first. The breweries then move to mid-size cities and finally to small cities, or as Bagniski put it, when the craft brewery has fully penetrated the rural landscape.

However, this diffusion of craft breweries might also have a “neighborhood” effect, or spatial contagion. The clustering effect (see Clusters, below) described by

Porter (1998) may reflect the neighborhood effect, or vice versa. If craft breweries are in fact clusters, as they appear on maps done by the Beer Mapping Project (2014), then the

“neighborhood” effect may also account for the spread of information on the network, or indeed, even the emergence of new breweries may be due to both hierarchical and contagious diffusion. Bagniski and Bell (2006) observed that new breweries are likely to be founded by a homebrewer who was “infected” by older, more established brewers.

Similar patterns are seen in disease transmission of communicable diseases.

Major transport hubs, such as New York or Hong Kong, might receive an illness first, which is then spread to other transport hubs on the network. Simultaneously, infected individuals begin to spread the illness within their own neighborhoods (Ruan et al.,

2006). Given the spread of network information described by both Batty (2012) and

Porter (1998), as well as the hierarchical diffusion noted by Bagniski (2008) it is conceivable that the emergence of new craft breweries is occurring in both a hierarchical

and contagious fashion. Ideas shared amongst established craft breweries may happen in the same way.

A focus in most diffusion research comprises the search for why some innovations succeed and some do not, and what barriers might exist that prevent the diffusion. Ryan and Gross (1943) published a well-known example that studied the diffusion of hybrid corn in Iowa. The authors noted that the adoption rates of new hybrid corn species among Iowa farmers initially was slow but increased rapidly over a short span of time. The study went on to examine the role of internal and external influences on the spread of the innovation, and found that the use of the new hybrid corn by neighbors had the most influence on the eventual adoption of the innovation by the farmers. Internal influence, in this case, mattered more than external influences. However, the authors uncovered that each channel - internal and external - served different functions. Mass communication functions as the basis of preliminary information, while interpersonal networks function as the influence over the farmers’ decisions to adopt. Ryan and Gross also found that the rate of adoption of hybrid seed corn followed an S-shaped curve, and that there were four different types of adopters, which Rogers adapted later in his studies.

Rogers (1995) describes five categories of innovators in terms of their adoption of new innovations. Innovators, or the very first stages of diffusion, include people of high social status, financial stability, and those people willing to take a risk. Early adopters also have high social status and advanced education. They use judicious espousal of innovations to maintain a central position in communications. Early majority adopters take up innovations considerably after innovators and early adopters, although they still maintain higher social status and contact with early adopters. Later majority adopters

approach new innovations with more caution and skepticism than previous adopters, and may have little social status and lack in opinion leadership. Laggards tend to stick to traditions and resist change (Rogers 1995). This work incorporates this concept to help understand the role of place based influence on craft brewery inception and subsequent popularity. The categories of innovators dovetailed well with questions of personal identity of craft brewers as well as explorations of the role of place in innovation adoption and success.

The Urban Landscape

Economics, Politics, and Culture. Social theory such as neolocalism cannot quite consider all the disparate elements that affect the uneven spatial distribution of the brewing industry in the United States. McLaughlin et al. (2014) as well as Tremblay and

Tremblay (2009), speculated about the changes in this spatial distribution. As previously noted, the brewing industry as a whole first consolidated as a few beer titans, then the microbrewery trend took off. McLaughlin et al. noted that freshness of the craft beer product is actually dependent on physical distance, degrading with increasing distance. In addition, fresh beer requires more expensive refrigeration than other fermented alcoholic beverages, thus there is a threshold for quality beer. However, the pattern of breweries is unevenly distributed suggesting that there are other factors influencing this pattern

(2014:132). McLaughlin et al. utilized combined methodologies to study the spatial and temporal changes of the brewing industry, including temporal changes and inter-state- level variation in craft beer production, and mapping of these temporal and spatial changes throughout the United States. The authors found that regional-level production is fastest growing in the Pacific Coast, the Southwest, and the Southeast. Interestingly, they

also found that breweries are establishing in non-major markets, although the majority concentration is in California. They conclude that expansion will continue to happen in states that are dominant in the brewing industry, but significant growth will also occur in those areas that are underrepresented (McLaughlin et al., 2014:151).

Studying high population growth areas without a current significant craft brewery expansion, such as in Florida, gives a “ground level” look at the brewing industry as it changes. McLaughlin et al.’s study suggests that there are other factors at work besides the free market. Scholars in economic geography have increasingly considered the roles of politics and culture in making economic decisions rather than purely market driven or

“rational” choices. Economic decisions might reflect a desire for collaboration, security, political connectedness, community based relationships or a combination of any of these motivations. Spatial patterns, such as clustering, touch on complex economic motivations in choosing business locations.

The City landscape: Jacobs' seminal work. Jane Jacobs (1961) wrote her most influential work on the 1950's urban planning policy. In this book, Jacobs attacks urban planning policies of the time, which she argued was responsible for the decline of many city neighborhoods in the United States. Jacobs contended that urban planning discards the city, because it casts off human beings in a neighborhood distinguished by layered intricacy and seeming chaos. Among these policies, she considered urban renewal the most destructive to the city landscape, particularly the separation of uses (i.e., residential, industrial, commercial). These policies, she claimed, devastate communities and novel economies by establishing inaccessible, unnatural urban spaces.

Instead, Jacobs promoted "four generators of diversity" that "create effective economic pools of use" (1961): diverse primary uses, activating streets at different times of the day; short blocks, permitting high walkability; buildings of a range of ages and states of repair; and density, or the grouping of large numbers of houses within high numbers of individuals within them.

Jacobs addressed the lack of diversity and issues in city planning as "the type of problem a city is," or the idea that cities are systems of organized complexity, much like other living systems (p. 428). She proposed that over time, buildings, streets and neighborhoods work as vibrant organisms, shifting in reaction to how people interact with them. She described how each facet of a city – sidewalks, parks, neighborhoods, governments, economies – behaves symbiotically, in the same way as a natural ecosystem.

Jacobs also promoted “mixed-use” urban development – the incorporation of diverse building types and uses. According to this idea, cities need a variety of buildings, residences, businesses and other non-residential uses, as well as people of different ages using areas at different times of day, to create community vivacity. She viewed cities as

“organic, spontaneous, and untidy,” and thought the mixture of city uses and users as critical to economic and urban growth.

Jacobs challenged the conventional planning approach which rested on the conclusions of external authorities. She suggested instead that local expertise is superior to directing community progress. She based this conclusion on her own empirical

experience and examination, taking note of the fact that government procedures for planning and development tend to contradict real-life operation of city neighborhoods.

Although traditional planning assumptions blame high population density for crime, filth, and a host of other problems, Jacobs scoffed at these assumptions and verified that a high concentration of people is imperative for city life, economic growth, and success. She showed through tangible cases how higher densities yield a significant gathering of people that is able to support more lively communities. Jacobs dismissed many myths about high concentrations of people by pointing out the difference between high density and overcrowding.

By scrutinizing how cities and their economies surface and develop, Jacobs sheds new insight on the character of local economies. She argued against conventional theories that cities are a creation of agricultural progression; that specialized economies stimulate expansion; and that large, stable businesses provide the strongest sources of innovation.

Instead, she advanced a model of local economic progress based on the admixture of new types of work with the old, supporting small businesses, and sustaining the creative drive of entrepreneurs (Project for Public Spaces, 2016).

Jacobs also used the City of New York to support some of her strongest ideas, that the neighborhood itself might provide an informal form of government, best able to understand the needs of the people in the community. She proposed that the city served as the parent community from which communal money flowed, administrative and policy decisions were made, and conflicts of general welfare are resolved on behalf of districts.

Counterpoised to the city itself are the individual streets, which also function as a

neighborhood. She states that street-level city neighborhoods should have an adequate occurrence of commerce, general vivacity, use and attention so as to maintain public street life. Jacobs preferred a functional definition over a spatial definition: "big enough to fight city hall, but not so big that street neighborhoods are unable to draw district attention and to count (p. 130)." Banded together, street neighborhoods fulfill the roles that the city cannot, to address local concerns and make visible the needs of the individual.

Jacobs classified neighborhood worth as a function of how well it can govern and protect itself over time, utilizing an amalgamation of residential collaboration, political influence, and financial strength. She argued that:

"A successful city neighborhood is a place that keeps sufficiently abreast of its problems so it is not destroyed by them. An unsuccessful neighborhood is a place that is overwhelmed by its defects and problems and is progressively more hapless before them (Jacobs, 1961, p. 132)."

Clusters: geographic interconnected businesses and institutions. Porter (1998) notes that in an increasingly globalized world, traditional economic concerns of cost- benefits for locational choice have less meaning; yet progressively more businesses are operating as clusters. What makes this striking, is that often the businesses in these clusters function cooperatively rather than competitively, counter to “rational choice” ideas of behavior (Ostrom, 1997). Porter (1998) posited that location plays an important role in economics of regions. He identified clusters of cooperative competitors that mutually benefit both each other and the outside economy. The cluster is a “critical mass

- usually in one place - of unusual competitive success in particular fields" (Porter,

1998:78). The cluster supports this competition and cooperation because they occur 43

among different groups and in different capacities. Further, the cluster survives best when it engages locally. Porter argues that the value of the cluster is the fostering of face-to- face relationships, a sense of community, and insider status (1998). In addition, it benefits the companies in the cluster to cooperate with one another, particularly in the form of trade organizations, which provide the vehicle for innovation exchange and joint actions.

Networks. Batty (2012) points out that the interactions of people across both space and time are the very definition of cities. Physical and social networks reinforce one another. The movement that evolves depends on both the people participating in the network and the physical space in which the network progresses, in this case, the city. As

Bagniski (2008) remarked in his work, cities are often necessary for the growth of microbreweries due to the hierarchical diffusion of ideas across the landscape as well as the likelihood of admitting brewing and beer style innovation into the city. Larger cities will admit new ideas (craft breweries) first; smaller cities or those with lower tolerance will come later. Indeed, the clusters described by Porter (1998) are most likely to occur within a city.

Early work on network analysis from sociologists focused on studying the city and its changing structure, as people began the change from the rural to the urban to the suburban movement (Borgatti et al., 2009). Much as Tuan (1980) lamented that people had no “rootedness” or deep connection to a place, early work by sociologists in network analysis explored the ways that urbanization destroyed community ties, which they investigated via network analysis. By and large, network analyses of cities did in fact bear out sociologists’ concerns. In 1973, Granovetter developed his theory of weak ties, or the idea of the introduction of social capital. Strong ties, or people who tend to

“clump” or cluster together often share similar, thus redundant, information. Weak ties, on the hand, are people or nodes which have a large degree of separation from the network, thus they often signify the source of new or novel information into the network.

In the social sciences, analysts often divide the network into links and nodes, with nodes representing an individual and links representing various social connections: social relationships, similarities, interactions and flows (Borgatti et al., 2009). Studying the nodes in the network often focuses on the centrality of the node, or the importance of that node to the network. How those nodes bind together also exemplifies a theoretical question of the social network. Social network analysts have explored the idea of

“structural holes” or the lack of connections between nodes. Nodes that bind tightly together may function collectively as a “formidable other” with strength in communication and as the coordinator of many independent nodes. Political alliances and labor unions characterize good examples of bound nodes. Those networks with many holes, on the other hand, may compete better in certain settings as they overcome the holes in the network (Borgatti et al., 2009).

Network analysis may also explore event based connections, with a matrix of connections between nodes. This could include adjacent ties, person by person connections, affiliation based ties or person by event connections, event by event ties, or connections by frequency of event attendance (Borgatti and Halgin, 2011).

Globalized economy vs. “Embedded” economy. What perhaps is evident in the preceding paragraphs is the integration of these ideas. Clearly economics and politics intersect and jostle side-by-side in the day to day operations of any business. Possibly

less apparent is the intersection of economics, politics, and culture, which forms the basis of the cultural or creative economy. This label has been applied to industries such as television, art, tourism, and other related activities (Scott, 2010). Scott (2010) lays out the fields that are necessary for the support of the creative industry, which includes the political, economic and social spheres (Figure 1). Important to note from this schematic is the value of each component of this system. For example, of crucial importance are the institutions of governance and collective action. Without the support of political institutions, creative fields within the city may flounder and/or fail. The concept of the cultural, creative economy mirrors that of the neolocalist, in which “bottom up” models of economy are becoming increasingly common, originating from the small, creative impulses of the few, but eventually offering “powerful and durable waves of innovation.

(Scott, 2010:127).”

Figure 1. Local economy vs. Capitalist economy (Korten, 2000) 46

This is similar to theories about cultural political economics. Jackson (1991) argues that

‘economic’ resources are culturally encoded, their significance depending on such subjective appraisals as much as on any intrinsic material value... [and therefore, politics is about]... the appropriation and transformation of meaning whereby the ‘raw materials’ of the natural and built environment are invested with symbolic as well as material value. (p. 332)

What both Jackson and Scott highlight here is a concept often applied to agricultural food systems, the concept of “embeddedness.” Rather than the classical economic assumptions of “rational” behavior, embedded economic behavior stems from a “complex web, often extensive, of social relations (Hinrichs, 2000, p. 296)." In an embedded economy, relationships between actors in the system include more than a simple “rational choice” model of economy suggests. Embedded economies include knowledge sharing, cooperation, and politics at all levels of the system, including vertical

(complimentary businesses such as brewers and packaging) and horizontal (such as two breweries) determinants in the system. Network analysis originates from the idea of the formal, social network that characterizes an embedded economy. Hinrichs (2000) argues that although an embedded “social” economy may seem the outward practice of a traditional or preindustrial society, it is indeed manifest in modern, capitalist societies as well. As an example, she shares the story of a woman visiting a farmer’s market. Though the woman searches for the best deal-advantageous to herself-when the vendor gives her a discount on her purchase, she reciprocates by waving the bag for the purchase, an example of the “give and take” type of exchange inherent in an embedded economy. As

Hinrichs (2010) points out, this exchange typifies the modern embedded economy, for

while it involves social relations, “embeddness does not entail the complete absence of market sensibilities.”

Examinations of the economic motivations of a particular business might reasonably consider issues of politics and cultural factors. The extent to which each individual factor influences economic choice reveals, perhaps, much about the values given to human, environmental, or market-based decisions. Whatever the extent, cultural political economy largely focuses on economic decisions and how that decision plays out on the landscape. A shift in the focus from economics to politics introduces further theoretical considerations, particularly with respect to the broader food system.

Urban political ecology. Urban political ecology (UPE) explores the ways cities constitute a dense network of myriad influences including neighborhood and worldwide, human and physical, and social and natural. The theory asks questions that are fundamentally political, yet address the underlying processes that create these political outcomes, in other words, who creates what type of socio-political relationships for whom (Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003). The results of these processes are unevenly distributed within the urban environment. “From a UPE perspective then, inequitable urban food systems reflect asymmetrical power relations in the city, so much so that hunger and other forms of food insecurity are the result of the interplay of power and politics in urban space.” (Morgan, 2014:4) Irregular spatial distributions may reflect underlying power struggles as a result of socio-political actions. Thus, the rise of one particular type of business in one area of the city may reflect latent political and social processes that hinder or help that business. The “environment of the city (both social and physical) is the result of a historical-geographical process of the urbanization of nature

(Heynen et al., 2006, p.2).” Consequently, UPE challenges the binary division between nature and society by studying the relationship between a human created space and its environment. Academics have piloted a sequence of studies to see how a socio-ecological focus can shed light on the intimate interaction of power, politics and place (Morgan,

2014).

Linking ideas about sustainability, politics, power, and the landscape, UPE considers how in capitalist cities, “nature” may take the social form of commodities. Be it the craft brewery, emergency food supplies, or the water consumed in a particular location, “they are all constituted through the social mobilization of metabolic processes under capitalist and market-driven social relations.” (Heynen et al., 2006, p.4) To some extent, this creates distance from nature and/or social relationships within the space, which in turn masks the “multiple socio-ecological processes of domination/ subordination and exploitation/repression (p. 8)” that may be a part of the urban landscape. UPE gives a theoretical, critical lens by which geographers may discern these hidden relationships.

What separates political ecology from cultural economy is the former’s focus on the uneven distribution of resources on the landscape. While cultural economy stresses the embeddedness of economy in the political and social realms of the city, political ecology considers the three elements of the “sustainability triangle” (Campbell, 1996). In this triangle, sustainability represents three points: economy, environment, and equity.

These elements often come into conflict and the result highlights the uneven distribution of resources within a given area. In other words, who or what is sacrificed for the benefit of the dominating entity (be it political party, ethnic group, lobbying party, etc.).

Theorists apply political ecology to “Third World” conflicts of equitable divisions of resources. However, McCarthy (2002) argues that the same concepts apply to “First

World” issues. These include 1) access and control of resources; 2) the marginality of certain groups within a community; 3) employment concerns; 4) property rights; and 5) framing of local meanings, histories, stories, etc. in terms of resource use (Johnson et al.,

2009). What Johnson et al. (2009) emphasizes that is particularly important to this research is that the UPE of First World conflicts is often as much a struggle over the meaning of a place as over the use of resources from a place.

The above represents a cross section of theoretical perspectives that share common elements. What remains is to focus these theoretical lenses on a particular subject in an effort to more substantially study elements of urban culture, such as craft breweries, that thus far have only been studied from a locational perspective. As this review makes clear, in order to truly understand urban phenomena such as the craft beer expansion, considerations of multiple theoretical approaches are necessary to understand why brewers chose a particular place, and what that choice means in a much broader context than has been previously explored.

Chapter Three: Methods

Research methodologies and analysis

Research study sites and population. This project concentrates primarily on microbreweries, including some brewpubs, in South Florida, which are members of the

Florida Brewers Guild (FBG), as of December 2015. The FBG is open to any Florida craft brewery, and functions as both a social and political connector for craft brewers in the state, thus it is an appropriate unit analysis for this study. The FBG operates as a nonprofit trade association, focused on assisting craft brewers throughout the state of Florida. Their primary concern is legal representation, although the members of the Guild also seek to instruct the public about the brewing business in Florida. The Guild actively encourages networking and informative meetings between brewers, consumers, suppliers, and government regulatory agencies and stimulates free market access of the Florida brewing industry to the public (Florida Brewers Guild, 2016).

The study population for this research includes brew masters, brewers, and

employees, such as brand ambassadors and marketers, of 87 different microbreweries and

brewpubs in the state of Florida. This population represents the breweries that are

members of the FBG during the study period. For interviews and participant observation,

this investigation centers on those breweries that participate in the FBG that fall within

the top two ranked metropolitan statistical areas (MSA's), the Tampa Bay area and the

West Palm Beach-Fort Lauderdale-Miami area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau

(Figure 2). The researcher chose these two areas in particular because: 1) most of the breweries occur in one of these two MSA’s; 2) population density is highest in these two

MSA's; and 3) accessibility to breweries in these areas compared to the other regions of

Florida. The scientist included additional breweries from other areas of the state, depending on the desire of the brewers to participate. In terms of the analysis portion of the project, the diffusion, content, and landscape analyses included all members of the

FBG.

Figure 2. Study Area: Particular focus on South and Central regions of Florida

Data Collection

The research uses qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies. The qualitative portion included fieldwork doing informal, unstructured and/or semi- structured interviews, as well as participant observation (Bernard, 2011). The investigator conducted 26 interviews with brew masters, brewers, and employees of breweries, as well as participated in 14 festivals and industry-focused beer events. The interviews and observations address:

 Identity of brewer/brewery employees (age, gender, background/education)

 Product related information (names, styles, ingredients, imagery, distribution, and

level of production)

 Community (participation in the FBG, guild events, non-guild events, Drink Like

a Local, causes/charities, city/county participation)

 Political concerns

 Economic connections/concerns (impact/relationship with city, county, state;

connections to other brewers; connections to other local businesses and

community).

Initial fieldwork used participant observation, particularly at festivals. Event observation and participation allows the researcher to gain access to the brewers’ network in Florida. The relaxed atmosphere made requests for interviews and photographs more natural than cold calling at the physical brewery. This technique also helped the investigator collect different types of data not possible with interviews, such as information about interactions between brewers, reduced the possibility of reaction from

subjects (i.e. changing their behavior because they are being observed), and to develop more meaningful relationships with the participants (Bernard, 2011). After making initial contact, and in many cases after an interview, the investigator again observed the brewers interacting at the beer festivals. This method allows the researcher to participate in the activities of the participants as an observer, as well as to verify informants’ statements through observation. After the extended time of working with the breweries in the FBG, most of the brewers became familiar with the researcher, which allowed the informants to relax and act more naturally than in a formal or semi-formal setting.

The investigator worked with a partner for festivals and for initial visits to the breweries. This ensured the safety of the researcher as well as allowing for ease of social interaction. Preliminary investigations indicated that a group of two or more gained more social acceptance than one person alone. In addition, the researcher conducted participant observation, generally with a partner, at the breweries as well as at beer-related events and festivals. The observation period for this study lasted from January 2014 to early

January 2016. In total, the researcher conducted 194 hours combined interview and participant observation hours. This included 82 hours of observation and informal interviews at beer related festivals, and 112 hours of observation and interviews at breweries.

Interviews and participant observations were mostly conducted during afternoon sessions. Unlike most alcohol-related events, craft beer events tend to occur earlier in the day rather than at night, with most festivals held on weekend afternoons. The larger beer festivals occur seasonally, with the bulk of the events taking place in fall or spring. For the interview portion, the researcher allowed subjects to choose their interview times

which were most often afternoons during the week. Brewing usually takes place during the day while the taproom of most breweries is open late afternoon to early evening

(typically, 2pm to 11pm), thus weekday afternoons were the most convenient times for the subjects.

Initial interviews with participants involved informal or unstructured interviews.

Informal interviews are a form of focused or directed but casual conversation. This allows the researcher to build rapport with the subjects as well as explore topics not thought of during the more formal interview process (Bernard, 2011). Unstructured interviews give most of the control for the session to the participant. The researcher keeps the interview on focus, but the subject delineates the subject-matter (Bernard, 2011;

Fadiman, 2011). During the unstructured interviews, the investigator used the research themes as guidelines for the conversation. In order to more closely explore research themes, the interviewer then conducted follow-up, semi-structured interviews with study subjects who agreed to participate. Semi-structured interviews are valuable in cases where the interviewer leads the discussion according to set questions but also allows flexibility to probe some topics at a more in-depth level (Bernard, 2011). Semi-structured interviews took place at the brewery itself, based on the comfort and convenience for the informant. Semi-structured interviews inherently involve more formality and thus fit the venue of the brewery. Festivals involved a relaxed atmosphere, and so the researcher used informal or unstructured interviews in this setting. Following the initial period of contact, the scientist conducted fieldwork at the brewery and/or festivals.

Unstructured interviews were guided by a set of questions (Table 2); however the unstructured interview proceeded much more organically, as the subjects were allowed to

deviate from this 'script'. In general, the researcher followed the informant’s lead as to whether or not the interview was unstructured or semi-structured. Some interviewees were more business-like and seemed more comfortable in the organized format of a semi- structured interview. Others were eager to discuss their background, their brewery, and their thoughts on craft beer. Often the researcher started an interview with the intention of a semi-structured interview, but as the subject opened up and expounded on their thoughts, the interview would become more unstructured.

Table 2. Interview questions for semi-structured interviews Research Theme Interview Questions Personal Name Position in Brewery How did you get started brewing? When did the brewery start/when did you start the brewery? What do you think “craft beer” means? Sense of place/place Where do you get your malt/hops? attachment How many beers do you produce? Do you follow the seasons? What types? Where do you get special ingredients (eg. pumpkin, fruits, spices, etc)? Have your recipes changed through time? How do you test beers? How do you name beers? How do you come up with symbols on beer and/or in your brewery? Where do you distribute? Why? Sense of community How much of your business is local (packaging, ingredients, marketing)? If so, how do you participate? How often do you work with other breweries on projects? Do you work with the city/county on events/projects? Do you promote local groups at your brewery? Why? Do you participate in festivals and events? If so, which ones and why? Do you feel that microbreweries provide a sense of community? Economics What do you think “local” means? Who are your typical customers? Do you know where they are from? Where? What do you do (if anything) to promote brewery? Do you make any collaboration beers? If so, with whom and why? Politics How do you feel about the recent political issues dealing with craft beer? How is your brewery zoned? Did you have cooperation from the city/county for zoning?

During the interviews as well as during participant observation, the researcher and research assistant recorded symbols such as advertisements and signs; language use such as beer names; architecture; and physical site of the breweries themselves. In addition, the team recorded these elements at beer-related festivals in order to assess the deeper

meanings of the landscape. In particular, the researcher relied on photographs of the breweries, the brewers, and the festivals in order to document the research themes named above. These photographs gave permanent visual clues to the landscape of the brewery at the time of the observation period. In addition, the researcher recorded images, names, styles, and ingredient choices for beers included in beer festivals and events (which are often “special release”, or those beers released only at the festival).

As well as interviews and participant observation, the investigator utilized social media, particularly Facebook, beer blogs, and the brewery websites in order to monitor interactions between breweries in the study area. During the course of the study, the investigator scrutinized the latter to gather information on economic and political interactions both between brewers and between the brewery and the community in which it is situated.

Methodology for data collection focused on archival data and direct observation.

Archival data is “data that the researcher directly copies from pre-existing computer mediated communications of online community members (Kozinets, 2010:98).” The archival data collection gave the researcher a cultural baseline on the craft brewers’ community. The collection and analysis of archival data provided a supplement to the participant observation and interviews. The researcher also collected data from websites and social media using an unobtrusive approach, remaining an inactive participant in the community. The investigator gathered archival data with the intention of conducting a content analysis for the research themes. Then the data was downloaded, and saved on

Facebook via the "Save" function, or downloaded and saved as a PDF, and stored for

later use in the coding analysis phase of the research. Articles from beer bloggers such as

Beer for the Daddy, Beer in Florida, Tampa Bay Beer Week, BrewHound, and Beer Law, as well as from local newspapers such as the Tampa Bay Times online, Sun Sentinel, and

Palm Beach Observer were gathered in real time (at the time of publication online). The scientist also conducted direct observation, which entailed observation of interactions between brewers and the brewing community via Facebook. The researcher also made use of hashtags such as #collaboration or #Iamcraftbeer to search Facebook for evidence of political and/or economic connections between Florida craft breweries. This was again limited to the members of the Florida Brewers Guild.

To conduct the cultural landscape analysis, the researcher considered the zoning patterns of the craft breweries in Florida. Zoning classifications efficiently generate spatial classes of social behavior and visual appeal. Such classifications are also a useful resource to order space so that the material content within the boundaries of the zone represents the conceptual relations inherent to the particular classification (Trudeau,

2006). In a dissertation by Datta (2009), the author used Google Earth to help identify broad zoning categories by locating big box stores, in order to find commercial or industrial zones. This study uses a similar methodology to help locate brewery zones.

The researcher used Google Earth and Google Maps, in conjunction with the results of qualitative research, to help identify commercial and industrial zones by examining the immediate landscape of the craft brewery, looking for industrial parks, railroad tracks, or clearly visible commercial development (strip malls, etc.) to help determine the zoning category. This is particularly important to brewery research as breweries are most often zoned as light industrial. In the case of microbreweries, the researcher examined first the

boundaries placed on craft brewery expansion, second, the reaction of breweries and cities/counties through the use of qualitative research (see sense of community and politics questions in Table 1) and third, the end result of brewery placement in industrial zones (what does this mean for success of the brewery and subsequent change of the neighborhood).

Data Analysis Methodologies

Diffusion Analysis. One of the basic questions of this study asks why breweries in Florida have spread across the landscape in an uneven spatial pattern. This work uses an internal influence model of innovation diffusion to consider this disparity. Mixed influence models of diffusion consider the influence of both external sources (such as advertising) and internal sources (such as word of mouth) to spread the innovation on the landscape (Mahajan and Peterson, 1985). The equation used for the mixed influence model is:

Equation 1

dN(t)  g(t)(m  N(t)) dt

dN(t) In this case, is the rate of diffusion, N(t) is the cumulative number of adopters of d(t) the innovation at a given point in time, m is the ultimate number of adopters, and g(t) is the change agent, or the coefficient rate of diffusion. In a mixed influence model, g(t) is equal to p+qN(t). The equation then becomes:

Equation 2

dN(t)  q    p  N(t)m  N(t)) d(t)  m  60

where N(t) equals the cumulative number of adopters at time t, m is the ultimate number of adopters, p is the coefficient of innovation, and q is the coefficient of imitation

(Mahajan and Peterson, 1985; Kijek and Kijek, 2010). The value of p and q are the generalizations of these values described by Mahajan, Muller, and Bass (1995), with p value of .03 and q value of .038. For the value of m, the ultimate number of adopters, this study uses data from a study done by Taylor et al. in 2014, which gave the expected number of craft breweries in Florida as 550, based on the number of breweries per capita in other states.

This research also considers the role of only internal influence. This model was used to look at the impact of only brewers' communications with each other and without the influence of media. This is valid because preliminary research indicated that craft brewers often have no advertising other than festival attendance and word of mouth.

Background investigation also suggested that brewers become connected to the network

(i.e. become a brewer) by first attending homebrewing clubs. Thus, internal influence on craft brewers may be more significant than external influence of mass media.

For the internal influence model, the equation becomes:

Equation 3

dN(t)  q    p  N(t)m  N(t)) d(t)  m  where the p value is 0.

In order to develop these models, this study took information on the foundings

(when the brewery opened) of craft breweries in Florida and the foundings of craft breweries belonging to the FBG, in order to develop a time series of brewery creations throughout the state of Florida. For this part of the analysis, the researcher considered 61

both the FBG and all craft breweries, to see how the model changed depending on inclusion/exclusion of breweries outside the guild. The scientist gathered information on brewery foundings from the qualitative research, from Walen (2014) and De Note (2015), as well as from the brewery websites and Facebook pages. One aspect that needed to be specifically addressed was the exact start date of the brewery founding. Some breweries considered their founding date as the day on which they applied for their federal license, others reported their founding date as the day they opened the doors of their taprooms, and still others report the founding date as the day they began brewing beer.

This research defaulted to the date they began brewing beer, although the researcher used the self-reported date of founding, if given. This work aimed at understanding the disparity in spatial distribution of craft breweries in Florida and what that meant in terms of the craft brewers’ connections to one another. The researcher looked at the date of the brewery founding, the region in which it is situated, the type of craft brewery, and how many times the brewery participated in an “out of network” collaboration. The work also utilized the innovation diffusion analysis theory proposed by Rogers (1995). Roger’s innovation diffusion theories, in conjunction with the qualitative data, aided in understanding and analyzing how and why craft brewing as an innovation spreads. Rogers describes five categories of innovators in terms of their adoption of new innovations (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Roger's diffusion of innovation theory (1995) The data was compared to the innovator category as well as the results of the network and content analysis. Each region was coded, corresponding to the map shown in

Figure 2, as it compared to Lamme and Oldakowski's 2007 regional analysis of Florida.

The North region includes the north part of the state including Alachua, Clay, Duval,

Escambia, Franklin, Leon, Okaloosa, St. Johns, and Walton counties; the Central region which includes Brevard, Indian River, Orange, Marion, and Volusia counties; the West region, situated in the west-central part of the state, includes Hernando, Hillsborough,

Lee, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota counties; and the South region includes

Broward, Collier, Miami Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties. Appendix A gives a list of these regions and the breweries included in the region. The researcher also broke the craft breweries down by type. These types referred to the setup of the brewery itself as either a microbrewery, a brewpub, or a contract brewer. A microbrewery was classified as one, a brewpub as two, and a contract brewer as three. Because of the distribution size of Cigar City Brewing, this brewery was classified as a separate class, a regional craft brewer.

Network analysis. At the most basic, network analysis investigates the relationships between nodes (individual actors, people, or things in the network) and links or edges (the ties that connect the nodes). Network analysis explores the "linkages among social entities and the implications of those linkages (Wasserman and Faust, 1994)." This can include event based connections, with a matrix of connections between nodes; adjacent ties, or person by person connections; affiliation based ties or person by event connections, or event by event ties; or connections by frequency of event attendance

(Borgatti and Halgin, 2011). Preliminary work suggests that most, if not all, of the brewers in Florida know each other, thus the "roll call" type sociogram may not be the best test for the social network (Nooy et al. 2005).The present study looks instead at collaboration beers created between two breweries. This was selected for two reasons.

One, collaboration beers may represent an expression of the embedded economy.

Because of the three tier system in Florida, breweries cannot directly sell/buy beer from a brewery. Brewers cannot sell beer outside their taprooms so collaboration beers are a

“gift” thus collaboration is likely to show a strong connection or both friendship and knowledge between two breweries. Two, this social network also correlates with the innovation diffusion analysis. Interpersonal communication is one mechanism by which innovations spread on the landscape (Rogers, 1983). The investigator gathered data on collaboration beers from 2013 to 2015. This data was taken from the interviews and participant observation, as well as from Facebook, beer blogs, and the brewery websites.

This work uses the open source program Gephi to construct a social network of the collaboration beers brewed between members of the FBG.

This research hypothesizes that craft brewers in Florida represent a bound, or closed network. This type of network lacks “structural holes” so each node is very likely to be connected to another node (Borgatti, et al. 2009).

Figure 4. Open vs. Closed networks (Borgatti et al., 2009) In a bound or closed network, most or all nodes have some form of connection to one another. In an open network, there are gaps, or pairs of nodes that are not connected

(Figure 4). These are structural holes in the network. Navigating these gaps can give a person an advantage as a broker (bridge between two disconnected nodes), yet close- functioning networks like a closed network may offer other advantages. “The lack of structural holes around a node means that the node’s contacts are “bound” together—they can communicate and coordinate so as to act as one, creating a formidable “other” to negotiate with. (Borgatti, et al. 2009) Thus the FBG participants may represent a closed network and may lack brokers.

In order to test this hypothesis, the analysis uses measures of closeness centrality, eigenvector centrality, and betweenness centrality. Closeness centrality concerns the inverse of the distance of each actor to every other actor in the network. In other words, brewers in the network potentially have more importance if the distance between them

and other brewers is small. Note that this is network distance and not per se physical distance. Closeness centrality measures range from 0 (not connected) to 1 (maximum connection). Betweeness centrality measures how often a node (a brewery) appears on the shortest path between two other nodes (breweries). This measures "brokerage." A network may have structural holes (see figure 3 above); a broker may navigate these holes by connecting unconnected parts of the network. Brokers might also bring in new information from outside the network. Eigenvector centrality measures the number of important connections a node has in the network. A brewer, for example, may have numerous connections to smaller breweries far apart in the network, but none to the power players in the network. Eigenvector centrality may illustrate "friends in high places."

The researcher also conducted a network analysis of festival attendance at 17 major festivals in 2015. The researcher specifically chose festivals that were organized by a third party (not a brewery) and/or held off-site (not at a brewery), to avoid bias and preferential attachment. These events were also selected because of the high numbers of brewer attendees in the past as well as the number of collaboration beers that were observed at the festival. Thus, festival attendance might represent a type of social capital, or glue that holds Florida breweries together. Social capital has been defined as "the fabric of society'' and "the glue that holds society together'' ...and centers on the networks, connections, collaborations, interpersonal relationships, and "institutional tissue" of a given society or community (Parnwell, 2007, p. 991)." Again, this network is limited to the members of the FBG during the study period.

Content and landscape analysis. Content analysis allows the researcher to derive meaning from text and imagery gathered in the field. The scientist takes the text, makes hypotheses about the data, performs coding on the data, and then interprets the results using statistical analysis (Bernard, 2011). In the process of coding, the scientist extrapolates concepts and categories from qualitative date in order to uncover themes in the data. Coding often utilizes statistical tests for frequency and/or testing the relationship between variables. Coding is data reduction, thus the researcher scans for larger abstractions of the data in order to make comparisons amongst many informants and locations (Bernard, 2011).

For the current work, the researcher took data collected from participant observation, from interviews, and from the internet to conduct content analysis. Data collected at a festival or brewery and internet was coded for content themes, based on the stated categories. This study uses the open coding process, which involved taking the qualitative data in the form of notes, photographs, and memos and performing successive, iterative passes over the data to discern patterns. First, the researcher scanned the notes and read through each entry three times. Next, the scientist identified larger content themes, or parent codes. Within the parent code, the researcher developed child codes, or sub codes of the larger parent code (Table 3). The scientist then input these themes into a matrix based on the codes given above to compare frequency of mention by breweries.

From the codes, the researcher also looked at relationships amongst the data. In this case, the researcher attempted to discern the relationship between brewers’ responses and regions. This also took into consideration codes from beer names, symbols, and imagery. The researcher took the sum of the data in order to make much broader

comparisons. For example, one question examines the correlation between the innovator category, regional location, position in the social network and frequency of mention of politics (among other possible combinations).

Table 3. Codes used in content analysis Parent Code Child Code

Collaboration Brewers (shared with other brewers) Community (shared with local/regional community) Sense of place History Environment Place identity (associated with region) Identity Sense of rebellion Personal identity Place attachment Economics Embedded (relationships with community) Politics History Distribution Cooperation (city/county) Zoning Patriotism

The scientist entered GIS-based information of brewer location, brewery foundings and the dates of the foundings, as well as vernacular regional data from

Lamme and Oldakowsk (2007) and Lamme and Meindl (2002). Using ArcMap, the researcher constructed a time series map which modeled foundings of breweries (when and where) and compared this information to the information from the vernacular regions outlined by Lamme and Oldakowski (2007). This included data on regional political and religious identity, in addition to place-based labels, and the results of the qualitative data

analysis. The scientist complemented the geospatial landscape analysis with data about the historical identity of each region: who are the people who settled there; from where did they migrate (cultural identity); and history of beer production in that region. This spoke to both the ability to discern regional differences between each place as well as political/economic assistance or barriers that make one place more favorable for brewery

“seeds” than others: inequality; history (community identity); regional identity (religious and political identity); and population density.

From the qualitative analysis, the researcher performed descriptive statistics on the derived data. Descriptive statistics included frequency distributions, which illustrated the frequency of a particular code. For example, how often is a place-based image used in the symbology of a brewery, or how often did the interviewees discuss community in the interview. Table 4 summarizes the data sources, the method of data collection, and the method of data analysis.

Table 4. Summary of Methodologies and analyses Data Sources Data Collection Data Analysis --Interviews with brewers at Field work:  Coding breweries for:  Semi  Content  Tourism and locals structured analysis Environmental interview  Social Network Awareness  informal analysis  Community interviews  Product related  Political concerns  Economic connections (collaborations) (Table continues on the next page)

(Table continues from previous page)

--Participant observation Field work:  Coding and interviews at beer  Semi  Content events --For inter-brewer structured analysis connections analysis and interview  Social Network spatial analysis:  informal analysis  Brewery region, interviews address, and county  Place-specific stories and images  Beer names  Beer styles  Beer ingredients  Political interactions and reactions  Collaborations  --Brewer websites and/or  Archival  Diffusion Facebook pages research analysis  Social Network analysis  Zoning  Brewers’  Landscape  Vernacular regions websites and analysis in (Lamme and Facebook ArcMap Oldakowski) which pages includes political  Google Earth and religious identity, major industry, and areas of blight  Historical background

Chapter Four: Results

Establishment

Adoption of the Craft Brewing Innovation.

Hierarchical spatial diffusion. Understanding the disparity in spatial distribution of craft breweries in Florida and what that means in terms of the craft brewers’ connections to one another revealed notable patterns. Previous research in both general geospatial diffusion of ideas as well as craft beer specific studies have suggests that expansion in the craft brewing industry occurs first in large cities, then diffuses in a hierarchical fashion as well in as waves of contagion through close contact with other brewers. Figure 5 shows this geospatial distribution, from the earliest brewpub in Florida,

Dunedin Brewery in 1996, to the year 2008, when Florida (and the rest of the United

States) witnessed an economic downturn (Schnell and Reese 2014).

Figure 5. FBG members in FL as of 2003. This is based on their foundings rather than the date of the membership in the guild (Map by April Watson, 2016. Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne; HERE; MapmyIndia).

Growth in the craft beer industry was slow in the initial years of the industry.

Dunedin Brewery opened in 1996, making it the first craft brewpub in the guild. By 2011,

FBG brewery foundings experienced a slow rate of growth. Brewery growth from that time went from 1 to only 23 (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The growth of FBG breweries from the years 2003 to 2011 (Map by April Watson, 2016. Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne; HERE; MapmyIndia). However, from 2011 to the present, Florida continues to witness a virtual explosion of growth (Figure 7). The number of craft breweries in the guild have nearly quadrupled in that time. This was expected given the rate of innovators in the system.

After overcoming what appeared as an initial resistance to the adoption of the innovation

(craft brewing), growth occurred rapidly throughout the state. By 2015, Florida had a vastly expanded craft brewing landscape.

Figure 7. The growth in Florida Brewers Guild members up until the year 2015 (Map by April Watson, 2016. Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne; HERE; MapmyIndia) By comparing these three figures, diffusion in the state of Florida did follow a hierarchical diffusion pattern. In 1996, there is a single FBG member in existence in

Tampa. By 2003, craft breweries expanded to other major Florida cities, including the

Miami/Boca Raton area, the Tampa Bay area, Orlando, Jacksonville, and the Space

Coast. By 2013, there is continued expansion via contagious diffusion and the neighborhood effect. Growth continues in larger cities, but by that point expansion has spread outward from the initial innovation center (the bigger cities) into mid-size areas of

Florida such as Gainesville and the Fort Myers/Naples area. By the end of 2015, craft breweries have expanded even further throughout the state (Figure 7).

These maps demonstrate where growth occurs and where it does not, and the effect of date of founding as well as the type of brewery established, and where. Most of the development is concentrated in coastal areas such as the First Coast (Jacksonville), the Space Coast (Cape Canaveral area), the Gold Coast (Miami area) and the Gulf Coast

(Tampa Bay area) and in the big tourist spot, Orlando. There is little growth initially in areas such as Tallahassee, the state capital; Pensacola; or St. Augustine.

The maps gives a spatial illustration of the uneven expansion of the breweries across the state of Florida. A central concern is the mechanism that drives or inhibits this expansion, which the innovation diffusion models addresses.

Graphical depictions of the craft brewery expansion in Florida. Graphing the actual growth of Florida craft breweries shows the numbers of craft breweries increase slowly from the year 1996, with growth nearly flat until 2011. However, after 2011, foundings double, then nearly quadruple in the year 2015. By fitting an exponential trendline to the graph, growth in the craft brewery industry appears to model this rate of change (Figure 8). The R2 for the exponential trendline is 0.9078, while the R2 for the polynomial trendline is 0.8984. A polynomial trendline is a curved line that is used when data fluctuates, for example, for analyzing gains and losses. An exponential trendline suggests that either growth or loss values rise or fall at increasingly higher rate. Thus, either type of trendline might model changes in the data set; in this case, the exponential growth trendline reflects the best match model for the equation.

Figure 8. The actual observed growth rate of Florida craft breweries which are also members of the Florida Brewers Guild. Comparing the growth rate pictured in Figure 8 to the growth rate modeled by the mixed influence innovation diffusion equation 2 (Figure 9), the rate of growth predicted by the innovation diffusion model is slower than the rate of growth that Florida actually experienced. The R2 for the polynomial trendline is 0.9103, while the R2 for the exponential trendline is 0.7659. In the mixed influence model, predicted growth starts out higher than what actually occurred. In 1996 (time period 1) there is a single FBG brewery founding. The mixed influence model predicts 17 brewery foundings at this time period.

Notable, in 2011 (time period 16) the model comes close to predicting reality. The model predicts 24 brewery foundings, in reality 23 breweries were founded at this time. After

2011, actual growth expands more rapidly than the mixed influence model predicts. The polynomial growth curves fits well with the mixed influence model, which demonstrates the rise and then decline in diffusion of an idea or technology. However, actual growth of

Florida breweries fits better with exponential growth trends, which gives rise to the sharp

change seen in Figure 8. Thus, the mixed influence model might not be a good representation of the observed growth rate of Florida craft breweries.

Figure 9. Graph of the mixed influence model of innovation diffusion (equation 2 shown). The red line indicates the exponential trendline, the green line shows the polynomial trendline. Figure 10 shows the graph of the internal influence innovation diffusion model.

The internal influence model appears to more accurately predict the initial spread of craft breweries, with slow growth. However, actual craft brewery growth expands with much more exponential growth than the internal influence model predicts. The R2 value of the polynomial trendline is 0.9065, where the exponential trendline’s R2 value is 0.9086.

Again, in an internal influence model, there is some force acting internally on the

individuals in the system that drives them to adopt an innovation. In this model, much as in reality, growth is initially slow and rapidly accelerates in the number of adopters.

Figure 10. Graph of the internal influence model of innovation diffusion (equation 3 shown). The red line indicates the exponential trendline, the green line shows the polynomial trendline. In looking at the three results together, neither the mixed influence nor the internal influence models capture the rapid growth rate that actually occurs in the Florida craft beer scene (Figure 11). Given the goodness of fit for the polynomial trendline for the mixed influence and internal influence models, Figure 11 compares the three graphs, and considers both an exponential trendline and a polynomial trendline for the observed

FBG growth rate. While the polynomial trendline provides a good fit, with a R2 of

0.8978, the exponential growth line still gives a better fit, with a R2 of 0.9053. The

polynomial line still provides the best fit for both the mixed influence and internal influence models.

Figure 11. Graph of the innovation models and the actual growth of FBG breweries. Red lines indicate an exponential trendline, green is the polynomial trendline. Florida does include numerous other breweries that were not part of the FBG during the study period. Diffusion of an innovation, such as the idea of craft brewing, would not per se be limited by inclusion in the Guild; rather, continued ideas and new innovations might flow along this network. Figure 12 shows the actual growth rate of all craft breweries in the state of Florida, compared to the internal influence model and the mixed influence model. The observed growth rate of all Florida craft breweries again appears to have an exponential growth rate. The R2 for the exponential trendline is

0.9325, indicating again a sharp increase. The mixed influence model again is a more

gradual rate of change, with the R2 for the exponential trendline of 0.8438. The internal influence model fits better for the exponential growth curve seen with all of the Florida craft breweries include, with a R2 of 0.9273. With all of the craft breweries included in the increase rate, the superexponential expansion is even more apparent. The numbers of craft brewery foundings sharply increases relative to either of the models.

Figure 12. Graph comparing observed FL brewery foundings to innovation models, with the exponential trendline shown.

Establishment and expansion

Understanding the role of cultural landscapes

Individual identity and Innovation adoption. A pattern emerged as to the type of brewery represented by the earliest adopters of the craft brewing innovation. This

pattern revealed that while the brewpub was often the first craft brewery in a region, it was the microbrewery that signaled the beginnings of true growth and expansion. The adoption of this innovation was influenced by the regional character, which in turn influenced the way that the craft brewer expressed his/her identity. Considering spatial expansion, each region is well represented by the early innovators. There are three early innovators in the North region, four early innovators in the Central region, four early innovators in the West region, and two early innovators in the South region (Table 5).

Table 5. Early Innovators Name Date of Adopter Region Type Founding Category Dunedin <[1996.0]> 1 West 2 Florida Beer <[1997.0]> 1 Central 1 Tampa Bay Brewing <[1997.2]> 1 West 2 Co A1A Ale works <[1999.0]> 1 North 2 Native Brewing <[1999.01]> 1 South 3 Ragtime Tavern <[1999.06]> 1 North 2 Brewzzi <[2001.5]> 1 South 2 Orange Blossom <[2003.0]> 1 Central 3 McGuire's Irish Pub <[2003.04]> 1 North 2 Orlando Brewing <[2003.05]> 1 Central 1 Saint Somewhere <[2006.11]> 1 West 1 Cigar City <[2009.0]> 1 West 1 Swamp Head <[2009.12]> 1 North 1

As of the end of 2015, for the North region, there are a total of eighteen breweries, the Central region has seventeen breweries, the West region has thirty-two breweries, and the South region has twenty breweries. Based on Roger’s work, the first

2.5% of the population is classified as early innovators. For Florida craft breweries, this list included the first fourteen breweries established in the state (Table 5). The remaining

members of the FBG as of December 2015 fit into the next category in Roger’s schema, the early adopters. Since the total number of expected craft breweries is 550, this brings the total brewery count to 88, meaning that craft breweries in Florida have reached a point where they can expect rapid expansion. The next category, early majority, should include 187 more breweries (Table 6).

Table 6. The eighty-seven members of the Florida Brewers Guild, the date of their founding, the region in which it is situated, and the type of craft brewery. Name Date of Roger's Region Region Type Founding Innovation name Category 26 Degree <[2015.9]> 2 4 South 1 3 Daughters Brewing <[2013.12]> 2 3 West 1 7venth Sun brewing <[2012.01]> 2 3 West 1 A1A Ale works <[1999.0]> 1 1 North 2 Aardwolf Brewery <[2013.03]> 2 1 North 1 Accomplice <[2015.11]> 2 4 South 1 Alligator Brewing <[2011.4]> 2 1 North 1 Ancient City <[2015.08]> 2 1 North 1 Angry Chair <[2014.11]> 2 3 West 1 Bangin' Banjo <[2015.09]> 2 4 South 1 Barley Mow <[2011.11]> 2 3 West 1 Barrel of Monks <[2013.11]> 2 4 South 1 Big Storm <[2012.1]> 2 3 West 1 Biscayne Bay <[2014.09]> 2 4 South 1 Bone Island <[2014.01]> 2 4 South 1 Brew Bus <[2013.1]> 2 3 West 3 Brewzzi <[2001.5]> 1 4 South 2 Bugnutty <[2013.09]> 2 2 Central 1 Carrollwood <[2015.06]> 2 3 West 3 Central 28 <[2015.07]> 2 2 Central 1 Cigar City <[2009.0]> 1 3 West 1 Concrete Beach <[2015.05]> 2 4 South 1 Copperpoint <[2015.05]> 2 4 South 1 Coppertail <[2014.09]> 2 3 West 1 Crooked Can <[2015.03]> 2 2 Central 1 Darwin's on 4th <[2012.01]> 2 3 West 1 (Table continues on next page)

(Table continues from previous page)

<[2014.06]> 2 2 Central 1 Daytona Beach Due South <[2012.05]> 2 4 South 1 Dunedin <[1996.0]> 1 3 West 2 Engine 15 <[2010.07]> 2 1 North 1 Escape Brewing <[2014.09]> 2 3 West 1 First Magnitude <[2012.03]> 2 1 North 1 Florida Avenue <[2012.07]> 2 3 West 1 Florida Beer <[1997.0]> 1 2 Central 1 Florida Keys <[2015.0]> 2 4 South 1 Ft. Myers Brewing <[2013.02]> 2 3 West 1 Funky Buddha <[2010.02]> 2 4 South 1 Grayton Beer Co <[2011.05]> 2 1 North 1 Green Bench <[2013.09]> 2 3 West 1 Green Room <[2011.8]> 2 1 North 1 Hourglass Brewing <[2012.08]> 2 2 Central 2 Infinite Brewing <[2015.03]> 2 2 Central 1 Intracoastal Brewing <[2013.09]> 2 2 Central 1 Intuition Ale Works <[2010.11]> 2 1 North 1 J Dub's <[2014.02]> 2 3 West 1 J. Wakefield <[2015.01]> 2 4 South 1 Mad Beach <[2014.12]> 2 3 West 1 Marker 48 <[2015.11]> 2 3 West 1 McGuire's Irish Pub <[2003.04]> 1 1 North 2 Miami Brewing Co <[2015.01]> 2 4 South 1 Motorworks <[2014.01]> 2 3 West 1 Naples Beach <[2012.11]> 2 4 South 1 Native Brewing <[1999.01]> 1 4 South 3 New Smyrna Beach <[2014.01]> 2 2 Central 1 Brewing Orange Blossom <[2003.0]> 1 2 Central 3 Orchid Island <[2014.08]> 2 2 Central 1 Orlando Brewing <[2003.05]> 1 2 Central 1 Ormond Brewing <[2013.09]> 2 2 Central 1 Oyster City <[2014.08]> 2 1 North 1 Pair O Dice <[2013.1]> 2 3 West 1 Pensacola Bay <[2010.11]> 2 1 North 1 Pinellas Ale Works <[2016.01]> 2 3 West 1 Pinglehead <[2010.03]> 2 1 North 2 (Table continues on next page)

(Table continues from previous page)

Playalinda <[2014.11]> 2 2 Central 1 Proof Brewing <[2014.05]> 2 1 North 1 Props Craft <[2012.05]> 2 1 North 2 R Bar <[2013.1]> 2 3 West 2 Ragtime Tavern <[1999.06]> 1 1 North 2 Rapp Brewing <[2012.09]> 2 3 West 1 Redlight redlight <[2014.04]> 2 2 Central 1 Saint Somewhere <[2006.11]> 1 3 West 1 Saltwater <[2013.12]> 2 4 South 1 Six Ten <[2014.02]> 2 3 West 1 Southern Brewing <[2012.05]> 2 3 West 1 St. Pete brewing <[2014.04]> 2 3 West 1 Stilt House <[2014.1]> 2 3 West 1 Swamp Head <[2009.12]> 1 2 Central 1 Tampa Bay Brewing <[1997.2]> 1 3 West 2 Co Tequesta <[2011.1]> 2 4 South 1 Three Palms <[2012.07, 2 3 West 1 2015.12]> Tomoka Brewery <[2014.01]> 2 2 Central 1 Two Henrys <[2012.05]> 2 3 West 1 Veterans United <[2014.08]> 2 1 North 1 Waterfront Brewery <[2015.09]> 2 4 South 2 Wild Rover <[2013.11]> 2 3 West 1 Wynwood <[2013.09]> 2 4 South 1 Zeta Brewing <[2015.04]> 2 1 North 2

Cultural landscapes: regional and personal characteristics that prohibit or help growth. From the examination of the role of cultural landscapes and regional identity, patterns emerge as to the influence of the regional characteristics and the growth of breweries (Figure 13). Lamme and Meindl (2002) and Lamme and Oldakowski (2007) identified regional patterns in terms of economics (the overall economic activity) and political inclination (conservative, moderate, or liberal). The economic and political

character of each region sways the way craft brewers chose to create (or not) place attachment.

Figure 13. Regional analysis with the zoning categories for the FBG breweries shown (Map by April Watson, 2016. Basemap credits: Sources ESRI; DeLorne; HERE; MapmyIndia)

The content analysis reveals notable patterns about the way imagery and symbols exposed the regional character of Florida, and thus how the individual craft brewer chooses to illustrate (or not) this local character. In general, analysis of the role of regional characteristics and personal expression revealed that the areas of more moderate political inclination, with tourism as the primary activity, had the most significant growth in the craft brewery landscape. The North and West regions appears to have the strongest

regional identities. Those regions with a moderate political affiliation tend to call on historical imagery and symbols to create their space. Conservative areas, such as the

North region or the South region, tend to use more of the environment in their images.

The agricultural North region most often uses place-based names and signifiers like using the area code or street names, particularly in the Jacksonville region. Brewers in other parts of the state did this as well, but with less frequency. This may be due to the age of the area, thus more notoriety for that specific road or place.

In the North region, all of the early innovators are brewpubs. This includes two brewpubs founded in the late 1990’s, well before most of the brew expansion in Florida.

The Central region’s earliest innovators are nearly all microbreweries, except for one contract brewer. However, these microbreweries were founded later than the North region’s brewpubs, in the early 2000’s, before the economic recession of 2008. The West region’s early innovators are a mixture of brewpubs and microbreweries. Once again, the brewpubs led the way, with the two brewpubs starting in the late 1990’s and the microbreweries not joining the scene until the mid-2000’s. Finally, neither of the South region’s early innovators are microbreweries; instead there is one contract brewer and one brewpub. Examinations of the foundings of craft breweries in Florida reveal that while brewpubs were among the earliest types of craft breweries launched, significant growth in the industry does not occur until microbreweries are established in Florida, which did not occur until 2003, when Florida Beer Company and Orlando Brewing

Company emerged as full-fledged craft breweries.

The founding of a brewpub, at least during the initial stages of the craft brewing expansion in Florida, also represented the conservative choice. North Florida has the

most brewpubs relative to the other regions of Florida (Table 7). When evaluating imagery used by brewpubs in any region, or examining the collaboration efforts of these brewpubs, Tampa Bay Brewing Company, Dunedin Brewery, and Brewzzi are the only brewpubs to make any efforts in cooperation with the network. The brewpubs, such as

Brewzzi and A1A Ale Works, are more likely to use generic beer imagery such as wheat, or non-regional specific Florida imagery such as "Dolphin's Breath." In interviewing craft brewers, brewers mentioned that often zoning makes it difficult to establish a craft brewery with a taproom by itself; a safer way to do this is to establish a restaurant. Thus, brewpubs may symbolize innovation, but innovation from a place of less risk.

Table 7. The number of craft breweries per region, and how many fall into each of Roger's (1995) categories. (Numbers current as of the end of 2015). Region # of # of contract # of # of Early # of Early

Microbreweries brewers brewpubs Innovators Adopters

1 (North) 12 0 6 3 15

2 (Central) 15 1 1 4 13

3 (West) 25 2 3 4 26

4 (South) 17 1 2 2 18

While across all regions breweries use combinations of historical persons, events, and/or industries of Florida, the West region tends to use these types of images most often. The North region, by contrast, often uses imagery of "Wild Florida:" the swamp, alligators, snakes, fish, and other similar images. In an interview with Ron of Veterans

United (in Jacksonville) he shared that “Jacksonville still feels like Old Florida.” The

North region breweries also most often developed in officially designated historic districts versus industrial parks. Given the settlement of true "Southerners" in this area, 87

North region brewers appear to recognize and respect the cultural identity of the people living there.

The West region is particularly strong in the invocation of the past. Examining the diffusion analysis, the North and West areas represent the first two areas to have had thriving craft breweries; this may help explain the particular strong identity created by these regions. The West region, in contrast to the North region, invokes the human driven changes in the state of Florida, rather than relying specifically on the natural environment. Brewers here tend to celebrate the human created environment as well as historical figures and events. For example, Cigar City has several beers that appealed to the historical settlement of the area, such as Tocobaga Red (the indigenous peoples of

Tampa Bay), but also other beer names that bring in Tampa's Latin heritage such as

Guayabera (a type of Cuban shirt) or their very rare Hunahpu, named for a figure in

Mayan mythology. They even have a beer named Minaret, named specifically for the built skyline of Tampa.

The Central region appears to have a mix of identity roles, lying on the boundary between the conservative agricultural North region and the more modern South region.

The North and South regions may suffer from the identity crisis that has plagued Florida geographers for quite a while (Lamme and Oldakowski, 2007). In many ways, Florida defies clear labels. The Central region has a strong tourism presence with Disney/Orlando at the center, yet surrounding Orlando lie agricultural areas and small towns. The Central region breweries tend to use more place specific identifiers than do other local breweries.

For example, Intracoastal Brewing has several beers named after the region: Porter

Canaveral, Port Hopper, and Space Oddity Lite. Orlando Brewing also has several beers which called upon the area: O-Town Brown and I-4 IPA.

Understanding neolocalism and place connection through beer names and imagery reveals that place attachment is expressed differently in different regions, and that difference appears to influence the number of craft breweries in that region. The more specific the place-based imagery, the more breweries that occur in that region.

Moreover, the landscape analysis reveals that the political tendency and economic activities of a region also influence the number of breweries that develop there, such that understanding why the uneven spatial distribution in Florida occurs in a combination of political leanings, economics, and historical settlement of that region. This in turn influences the way that craft breweries of that region branded their brewery. The areas of more agricultural activity tend to express place attachment via use of the environment, whereas areas with high levels of tourism development tend to use other types, particularly human-derived landscapes and significant historical figures, to convey place attachment (Table 8).

Table 8. Frequency of content themes in FBG imagery and beer names. Theme Frequency (all FBG North and Central West and South

breweries) Regions Regions

Place specific 19.5% 21% 50%

History 24% 34% 27%

Environment 40% 56% 39%

Other/unique 21% 29% 20%

The role of the natural landscape in establishment. As Figure 21 illustrates, distinctive patterns occurred across Florida. The North region reflects a connection to agricultural production as well as politically conservative citizens. Historic development and settlement of the northern portion of Florida follows closely along the coast and centers on urban growth, particularly in Jacksonville, Pensacola, and St. Augustine. Much of the earliest settlement in Florida centered on military growth/forts. This reflects the age of settlement of North Florida. Jacksonville holds the title of "First Coast" (Lamme and Meindl, 2002).

The North and South regions, especially the North region, rely heavily on environmental images and symbols to create their identity. This is, to some extent, in keeping with regional vernacular labels for this area. This includes the general area around Alachua, which fell in the "Nature Coast" vernacular region. Swamp Head, one of the largest breweries in North region, relies heavily on invocation of the landscape to share and create their brand. Most of their beer names and images invoke the Swamp or swamp-related elements, an even more regionalized colloquial name for the Gainesville area. For example, their flagship beers include Cottonmouth or Stumpknocker, species found in this section of Florida. Some of the breweries in this region have even more specific environmental images. The symbol for Grayton Brewery in Fort Walton Beach contains literally the landscape right outside the taproom door (Figure 14). Grayton even appeals to the vernacular region in their description of their brewery, using the terms emerald waters. The vernacular name of this area of North Florida bears the label

"Emerald Coast." Brewers in South Florida tend to also make references to the environment in their symbols and beer names. For example, Due South has a series of

beers named after hurricane strengths: Cat 3, Cat 4, and Cat 5. Saltwater frequently evokes fishing imagery such as Screamin' Reels or Bone-a-fied Blonde.

Figure 14. Grayton Beer, Images from Google Earth (2016) and Grayton Beer Company (used with permission from Grayton Beer Company (2016)).

Although the center of the Central region, Orlando, relies on tourism for economic production, the vicinities to the north and south of I-4 remain more rural and

"Southern," as Lamme and Meindl (2002) noted. At least one of the breweries in this region depends on the appeal to the agricultural, perhaps as a way to appear more like vineyards, with a call to terroir. Orchid Island Brewing calls upon a deeper connection to the land than one might expect given the tourism-driven nature of the area:

"The town of Orchid Island and Indian River County originated around the citrus industry. The area is widely recognized as a region that grows the planet's best citrus. The combination of OIB's geography and climate are what contribute to a deep sense of terroir. (Orchid Island Brewing, 2016)." Other breweries in the Central region also rely heavily on natural and/or agricultural images and beer styles to create their identity. Orlando Brewing opened its

doors in 2003 and signified the only brewery in Florida to both have an organic certification as well as the "Fresh from Florida" designation from the state. In an interview with John of Orlando Brewing, he discussed how the organic designation reflects more a concern for the quality of the beer and to "help the biosphere." Despite this, Orlando Brewing reflected the industrial nature of many of the brewery landscapes in Florida; the landscape was urban, not natural (Figure 15).

In many ways, the Central region represented the cultural web of Florida described by Lamme and Oldakowsi (2007). In this central portion of the state, breweries evoked the images of both historical and agricultural connections. Yet the majority clustered either along the coast or around Orlando, suggesting the urban nature of the craft brewing world. The Central region appeared to suffer from the identity crisis of

Florida the most, with brewers relying on natural landscapes and agricultural ideals, despite the urban and highly developed nature of this region's largest city, Orlando.

Figure 15. Orlando Brewing focuses on the agricultural identity of Central Florida, yet the landscape reveals the industrial/urban nature of the city (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright 2016 by April Watson). In general, the South region breweries utilized nature based imagery in the creation of their identity, despite the more urbanized nature of the region. If anything, the

South region relies mainly on coastal imagery of human construction to create their spaces. The South region often uses beach themed imagery such as the sun, waves, deep ocean fish, turtles, and other non-beach coastal environmental imagery, perhaps ironically given the extensive human built surroundings of the southeastern coast. Craft brewers in the Keys distinctly evoked the beach, sun, sand, and waves in their imagery.

The role of history and settlement in brewery establishment and identity creation. Although the North region experienced some of the longest history of settlement, breweries here do not necessarily tend to invoke historical events or persons.

Instead, breweries here occupy historic buildings and created their identity on the

physical location. More than any other region, the North region breweries occur in historic zones. These areas may also have had industrial or commercial zoning; however the adjacent buildings as well as the age of the settlement suggested to the researcher that these breweries occur in official designated historic districts, such as A1A Ale Works, housed in a building built in 1869 (Figure 16). Many of the buildings had prior use as fire houses or hotels, thus giving the breweries the space necessary to set up large equipment such as the brewing tanks. A1A Ale works, for example, was formally the St. Augustine

Plaza hotel, and a part of the downtown St. Augustine historic district.

Figure 16. A1A Ale Works: an example of historic zoning in North region. The building was built in 1869 (Google Earth, 2016).

Breweries in the North region commonly mention or use vernacular region labels in their beer names. For example, both Ragtime Tavern and Intuition Ale Works have beers with the name "First Coast." In fact, only in the North and Central regions do

breweries refer to these vernacular labels for Florida's cultural landscape. Perhaps breweries in the North region rely more on environmental images to help create place, but as a conservative measure, and as homage to the agricultural/underdeveloped nature of much of North Florida (especially compared to the coastal regions of South Florida).

While growth historically occurred in coastal areas in North Florida, over time, from the early 20th century onward, an overland route emerged that crossed the state from around Daytona Beach and southwest across to Tampa Bay. The I-4 corridor, the recent manifestation of that overland route historically created in this region had several breweries zoned as historic or agricultural along its length (Figure 21). South of this interstate, Florida has no craft breweries in the interior. The Everglades created a boundary which made craft brewery development in the interior difficult. Symbols in the

Central region tend to reflect the historic settlement of the Northeastern central part of

Florida. Ormond Beach Brewing near Daytona uses old cars in the symbols in their taproom, and an old car as the symbol of the brewery. Daytona Beach's history includes the "birthplace of speed," the Indy 500.

Although the West region includes a long historical past, breweries in this region most often tend to occur in areas zoned as industrial. Historical buildings in the West region often did not survive more recent development. This author has witnessed much in the West region in terms of urban development, contraction, and revitalization. Thus, only one of the breweries in this region occur in districts zoned as historical/agricultural; however, breweries may occur in areas that once had historic character but suffered economic underdevelopment (Figure 17). Microbreweries dominate the landscape of the

West region, with brewpubs and contract brewers making up only 11% of the craft

breweries. These brewpubs, however, include some of the most influential brewpubs, including Tampa Bay Brewing, and Dunedin Brewing, the first two craft breweries in the state post-Prohibition.

Figure 17. Example of historic revitalized building in industrial area: Green Bench (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright 2016 by April Watson). The West region breweries often evoke historical connections, particularly of people and human-centered events, although rarely do the West region breweries occur in officially designated historic districts. About 30% of the breweries in this region mention not only historical Florida, but specific events or persons connected to Florida's past.

Breweries also utilize specific place names that characterized this region only. Saint

Somewhere, for example, uses maidens bathing in the pure waters of Tarpon Springs as its symbol. Stilt House refers to the old Florida tradition of building houses on stilts on the water. The name of the Green Bench brewery, which occupies a renovated historic building, although the building was zoned industrial, refers to the historic green benches that used to line the roads in St. Petersburg (Figure 17). In the early 1900’s St. Petersburg

was known as the “City of Green Benches." The benches served as meeting places, exactly what Green Bench wanted for their brewery. In fact, the "theme" of the brewery as a meeting place emerged from talking to craft brewers throughout the West and South regions. Cigar City, the giant of the Florida beer scene, also utilizes many historical symbols and beer names. Indeed, the name Cigar City pays homage to the cigar factories of Tampa's past. Two Henrys in Plant City also specifically evokes historical figures - the two Henrys credited with spurring Florida development, Henry Flagler and Henry Plant

(the two gentlemen who built the rail system throughout Florida).

Brewers make fewer historical references in the South region than other areas, although those that do often mention specific significant figures. Wynwood has several beers named after historic figures such as Father Francisco (named after the first Jesuit priest that landed in Miami and set up a mission at the mouth of the Miami River in the early 1500's), Flagler Saison (named after Henry Flagler), and Tuttle Stout (named after

Julia Tuttle, considered the mother of the city of Miami).

The role of cultural identity in establishment and development. The West region experienced different settlement patterns than either the North or Central portion of Florida, although it shares commonalities. The political inclination of the Central region tends towards moderate, with tourism again making up the dominant economic activity. In terms of identity, the North region, as well as the Southern region, has historically been the most attractive for foreign born individuals, particularly of Latin

American descent. These two regions feature large ports of entry, Tampa Bay and Port of

Miami, and as Lamme and Oldakowski (2007) suggest, where citizens of upper class cluster, migrants have tended to group as well, as sources of cheap labor. The Tampa Bay

region has traditionally centered on the manufacture of cigars, as well as being the home of the first craft brewery in Florida prior to Prohibition (De Note, 2014; Walen, 2014).

Tampa in particular had strong connections to Cuba and the roots of revolution, change, and political action. In 1893, the revolutionary Jose Martí delivered a speech in the area in front of Ybor's Cigar factory, with more than 10,000 Cubans punctuating his speech with cries of "Cuba Libre (Free Cuba)!" In 1896, Ybor, a Cuban immigrant and a group of investors found the Ybor City Brewing Company (Watson, 2015).

The South region underwent a much different settlement pattern than the northern part of the state. This difference resulted from Flagler's railroad, extending from the north part of the state down to Miami, in 1896 (Lamme and Oldakowsi, 2007). From this point, settlement in the southern portion expanded rapidly, concentrated along the coast.

Into the 20th century, this area became a wealthy tourist magnet, as evidenced by the name "Gold Coast." The regional character of the South region reflected the presence of a diverse population with often unequal distributions of wealth. The political affiliation of the South region tends towards conservative, with the foremost economic activities geared toward tourism.

As mentioned previously, this area attracts many migrants from Latin America.

The foreign-born population has grown significantly in this area, steadily increasing every year. For the years 2012-2014, foreign born residents make up 51.5% percent of the population of Miami, considerably more than the U.S. percentage of 13.1% (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2016). Thus, South Florida reflects a distinct character difference relative to the other regions in the state, and, based on settlement patterns, Florida exhibited these strong cultural area differences between North and South (Lamme and Meindl, 2002).

Craft breweries in South Florida often occurred in nondescript industrial parks, which made finding these locations even more about being "in the know.” The industrial parks masked the craft brewery, such that in order to find the brewery at all, one must have knowledge of the spartan exterior of the Southern regional craft breweries (Figure

18).

Figure 18. Example of an industrial landscape in South region, Due South Brewing (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright 2016 by April Watson) One unique feature of brewers found in the Wynwood region of Miami was in contrast with most other breweries, which tend to make little change to the landscape.

Almost across the board, craft breweries in Florida tend to evolve in the industrial space without making significant change. Rather, the use of space in the industrial zones created what this author calls "community refaceting," which may serve as a bridge to the formation and celebration of place attachment (see discussion). However, an exception was in the Wynwood area of Miami. Although the area of J. Wakefield, Wynwood

Brewing, and Concrete Beach brewing are zoned industrial, partnerships with local artists have transformed this space in a way unlike nearly other region in Florida (Figure 19).

The creation of this artistic space in Wynwood is unique to this location alone.

Unique commonalities in identity creation: celestial beings and the particular use of local products. A feature unique to many of the FBG breweries across the state is the invocation of celestial beings, be it an actual mythological figure or a creation of the brewer's imagination. For example, in Central region, Bugnutty created a beer called

"Zeus Will Smite Thee." Pinglehead in Central region created an identity around

Pinglehead, a "mythical god of “Big Beer." The story follows that Pinglehead brought the first grain and hop rhizomes to ancient citizens with the knowledge of how to produce

100

“Big Beer” (Pinglehead, 2016). Concrete Beach in South region has Sola, the mythical spirit of Miami, as the symbol of their beers (Figure 20). Cigar City in the West Region has their Hunahpu beer, not only named for a Mayan god but arguably their rarest beer.

In Mayan mythology, Hun Hunahpu was the father of twins Hunahpu and Xbalanque.

Hun Hunahpu, along with his brother Vucub Hunahpu, was deceived by the Dark Lords of the underworld and slain. Hun Hunahpu’s corpse changed into a cacao tree, his head becoming a cacao pod, which then spit upon the hand of a young maiden named Xiquic.

She became pregnant with the twins, who grow up to avenge their father and uncle and defeat the Dark Lords and ascend the heavens to become the moon and sun (Cigar City,

2016). In all these cases, the symbology of the mythical being creates a conduit between the fantastic and reality, where the drinker gets to consume some type of magic created by the beer, even drinking "art." (Figure 20)

Figure 20. The mysterious Sola of Concrete Beach, shown here from a package of Concrete Beach pilsner (Logo used with permission. Photograph by April Watson. Copyright by April Watson, 2016). Another commonality across regions includes the use of local honey, locally roasted coffee (or Cuban coffee), and fruit based beers, particularly orange based. Florida

101

craft brewers frequently mentioned specific ingredients local to Florida during interviews. Interviewees recurrently mentioned the desire to include local products in their beers "as much as possible." Archival research bore out this use. Across the state,

Florida craft brewers included as much of locally produced goods as feasible.

Zoning and Establishment. About 70% of the craft breweries in the North region have commercial or historical/agricultural zoning. Of the breweries in the North region, brewpubs make up 33%. Of the Central region breweries, 53% have either commercial or historical/agricultural zoning, while 41% are in industrial zones. One of these breweries, Orange Blossom, brews on other breweries' systems, thus they have no

"brick and mortar" location of their own to classify. More than half of the breweries in the North and Central regions had zoning classifications other than industrial (65%). The

West region breweries occur almost exclusively in areas zoned industrial or commercial with only one of the breweries in districts zoned as historical/agricultural. However, breweries may occur in areas that once had historic character but suffered economic underdevelopment. Seventy percent of the breweries in the South region fall within areas classified as industrial, while thirty percent fall in zones of either commercial or historical/agricultural.

Results are mixed about whether breweries have city or county support. Zoning and permitting plays a key role in the creation of these areas. In many cases, the city or county business development or Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA’s) offered assistance to the craft brewers, only to have zoning boards or permitting boards hold up the process. Some cities and counties offer much assistance and guidance to the

102

breweries. For example, the City of Oakland Park worked with Funky Buddha to create a

Culinary Arts district. John of Funky Buddha stated that this project:

“…was years in the making. The redevelopment assistant was looking to create a thriving downtown. They had a hard time attracting someone…they needed to bring in someone who can sustain themselves. K.C. (the owner of Funky) met with the RMA at a meeting in D.C. They decided on a location that night!” In conjunction with the city, Funky redid the outside of their current building, as well as updating the landscape and the façade (Figure 21). As John said, “The City wants us here.”

Figure 21. Funky Buddha brewery (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright 2016 by April Watson). In addition, the presence of other brewers greatly aids the process. This is twofold: the other, more established brewers clear the way for newer brewers to enter the 103

area, and offer assistance to the newer brewers in terms of legal or political issues surrounding the process. For example, one of the most recent entrants to the St.

Petersburg area breweries, Matt of Pinellas Ale Works (PAW) offered that “...Other breweries were free with their information….always offering to help when they can. In fact, the already established breweries’ reception was the more the merrier!” Matt stated that in general the city and county were overall “...Positive. People have to do their job, so we just have to follow the rules and be patient.” This was the general attitude in

Dunedin as well. Recall that Dunedin, Florida has the oldest craft brewery in the state post-prohibition, Dunedin Brewery. In talking with Devon of 7venth Sun, also located in

Dunedin, she related that “Dunedin is a beer town…we have an established customer base.” Julie from Pair O Dice stated that “Rapp helped pave the way; he made it easy to argue for a tasting room.”

In many places, breweries face political and legal bumps in the road on the way to establishment. For example, Tito of Biscayne Bay Brewing shared that the City of Doral was “difficult…there are not many other craft breweries here…they asked us to put fire sprinklers under the tanks! This makes it a long process, but we can’t fight it.” He also shared, however, that “...A lot is happening in Doral…we came in at the right time.” The lone interview from the North region, Ron of Veterans United shared that Jacksonville “is the fastest growing area for craft beer, but the city is not necessarily supportive. One group is, Visit Jacksonville. They understand tourism, but the government is stuck in the

1970’s and 1980’s.” He stated though, “Jacksonville and the state…it’s a lot like wine.

Attitudes take a while to change.” Even established beer regions, such as in the West region, suffered from these growing pains. Julie of Pair O Dice said “Cities don’t

104

understand breweries…they equate them to a restaurant.” 26 Degree’s Yonathan also expressed this same frustration when choosing a space in Fort Lauderdale, that the city wanted them to attach food to the brewery. Food, it seems, makes beer a safer risk.

Zoning and place establishment may also represent a personal choice for the craft brewer. The most often mentioned reason for choosing a particular place for their brewery is either family connections or college associations. Nearly everyone stated that they grew up in that particular area or attended college in that area, made connections to other individuals who did live in Florida, and then established their brewery in that place.

This choice also impacted if a brewer could call themselves “the first of…” a particular place. This became more and more important as brewers began filling in the landscape.

For example, Matt of Accomplice Brewery stated that zoning in his building:

“…oddly, cut the building into the City of West Palm Beach for the brewing facility and unincorporated Palm Beach County for the taproom. So if there are any permitting issues for the new space, we will move the brewery to the unincorporated side and move the taproom to the City side.”

He also acknowledges that “we are the first and only brewery permitted in the

City; others have inexplicably been denied permits.” Moments of friendly competition emerge in discussing “who was first.” Matt of Dunedin Brewery and Todd of Tampa Bay

Brewing Company teased each other about who was first while at a craft beer festival in

2013. Yet, date of establishment also helped give brewers prestige, which may reflect relative positions of brewers in the collaboration and festival networks. Julie of Pair O

Dice shared that although they were officially in the city of Pinellas Park, they had a

Clearwater address, which allowed them to earn the title “Clearwater’s first brewery.”

105

Interestingly, she also said that they also chose that area for industrial zoning. The industrial park came with large loading bay, which allowed them to have a higher ceiling height, and fewer restriction on stacking supplies, cans, and/or kegs.

To establish themselves, and in order to navigate the tricky process of city, county, and federal permitting, licensure, and zoning issues, brewers join the Florida

Brewers Guild (FBG). When asked about why they chose to join the Guild, overwhelmingly brewers stated they joined because they wanted legal representation and help. Devon of 7venth Sun served on the board of the FBG, and noted a study done by the economics department of University of Florida, created specifically to explore the economic and political issues facing FBG members (Taylor et al., 2014). She stated that the Guild helped to “centrally unify brewers. It gives us a stronger and louder voice. We can get more specific…about government regulations.” This was an opinion shared by most, for example, Reimy of Brewzzi stated that “...the Florida Brewers Guild helps us have a voice in legislation.” The Guild also provides resources for new brewers as

Christine from Marker 48 shared, “They have tons of resources, and can help you meet other brewers…it’s a way to connect.”

Identity in establishment

Personal identity in craft brewers. Interviews with FBG brewers revealed interesting patterns about identity, economics, and political concerns of Florida craft brewers. Of the 26 interviewees, a few commonalities emerged (Table 9).

106

Table 9. Frequency of Interviewee responses Categories Attributes Frequency of Response Identity --Gender  Interviewee’s 85% male identifiable gender 15% female --Background  Homebrewer 65%  Chef 15%  Engineer (worked in 35% this field prior to starting brewery)  Microbiology 7% (specific to beer production)  Training in Germany 15%  Apprenticeships (formal or informal)  College degree (of any 23%

type) 69% Collaboration  With other brewers 62% Community  Mention of the word 100% or concept of community  Collaboration with 65% community Politics  State level (growler 31% (answers dependent on size fight and taproom date of founding-some after issue) passing of new laws, see  Zoning/licenses from discussion) city/county 54% Place  From the area 37%  Attended school 52%  Other 11%

Gender. This case study represents a select sample of brewers, yet from which one can discern generalities about who makes craft beer (Bernard, 2001). In this sample, respondents tended to be males in their late 20s to mid 50s. There were a few females respondents and as such worth noting. Of the females, four were part of a husband and

107

wife team that created the brewery. Many of the brewers mentioned their wives and how instrumental they were in starting the brewery. Several of the brewers shared a similar story of a home brew system given to them as a gift from their wife which propelled them into the craft brewing world.

Nonetheless, the wife did not take a backseat role in the brewery. For example,

Ken and Julie of Pair o’ Dice both came into the craft brewing world via working with big beer companies. Julie stated that part of the reason she left Anheuser Busch was due to the fact that they did not promote couples equally. Both Ken and Julie left Busch to become electrical engineers, which then gave them the financial security for homebrewing and eventually start their own brewery. Devon of 7venth Sun has a similar story (Figure 22). She began working for Anheuser Busch with a degree in fermentation science, then Sweetwater in Atlanta. She met her business partner Justin while working at Sweetwater. In 2012 they started their brewery. From observations at other breweries and festivals, as well as direction observation from Facebook and websites, other breweries also employ female brewers, and not just, as Nurin (2016) put it, in traditional female roles in human resources and marketing, but in production.

108

From scientist to the science of craft brewing. There are a series of archetypes that fit the identity of the Florida craft brewer: the scientist, the artist (often a chef) and the business person. For example, Darwin’s Brewery themes their space around food and their tagline states “Chef inspired.” Matt from Darwin’s mentioned that they even work with the local restaurant Indigenous to create chef inspired creations.

Often these categories overlapped and repeated throughout the investigation.

These archetypes hold true even for individuals who the researcher only observed rather than interviewed. Many of the interviewees commented on these facts. For example,

Todd of Tampa Bay Brewing Company commented that “...Brewers…we are chemists, chefs, mechanics…why? Because we love beer!” Ron of Veterans United mused that he

109

had met science driven brewers, like himself, and artistic brewers. His head brewer,

James had “...artistic flair…so we balance each other out.”

Brewers tend to come from similar walks of life. Most craft brewers interviewed in this study had a college degree of some type, although that degree may or may not have anything to do with the science of brewing beer. In particular, craft brewers tend to hold degrees in engineering of some kind, often in electrical engineering, software engineering, or civil engineering. This seemed to have a great deal of impact on the use of space and/or the creation of beers in the brewery. For example, Greg Rapp of Rapp

Brewing worked as a software engineer and designed the space for Rapp Brewing. The brewery is in an industrial park and as such has a small interior space. Greg designed the system to maximize use of the space in the small building. Other engineers also make maximum use of small taproom space and warehouse open spaces where the brewing equipment is typically situated. Indeed, the process of attending college appears to function as a jumping off point for many brewers. Particularly the younger brewers (those closer to their mid 20’s) began brewing in their kitchens or garages during college, then transitioning either into a corporate job, or, more rarely, leaping straight into brewing.

Those that differ from this pattern tended to come either from a business background, or worked in the food industry prior to entering the craft brewing world. Many brewers, during their interviews with this researcher, mentioned "leaving the corporate life." This is interesting, as brewers leave jobs that are considered white collar to enter a field that often involves physical labor. Brewing beer is a physical task; and yet individuals chose consciously to move away from (sometimes very high paying) jobs to enter a career field with increased risk and hard labor.

110

The previous literature acknowledged the role of homebrewing in the creation of the craft brewer, yet this work made clear the role of education to the craft brewer: across the board, these individuals are highly educated. Of the people interviewed, 69% of the interviewees indicated they had a college degree of any kind. Craft brewers appeared well aware of the role of identity in their community. Throughout this study, the craft beer scene in Florida witnessed rapid expansion, with many interested individuals scrambling to figure out why. In talking to these individuals, they seemed conscious of this fact, especially towards the conclusion of this study. Yet perhaps this educational background made them less uncomfortable than they might have been otherwise; they acknowledged that they held these innovative roles in changing cityscapes and the economy around them and had notable thoughts on why craft beer has proven so pervasive in the

American cultural landscape.

From establishment to success

The creation of a collaboration network, from 2013 to 2015

A unique feature of the craft brewing industry comprises the collaboration network in which craft brewers participate. Collaboration brews allow two (or more) craft brewers to create a product together. Because Florida has a three-tier system, beer cannot be sold directly from the producer to the consumer. In this case, even another craft brewer is considered a consumer. Thus, collaboration beers are often gifts between two brewers, i.e. no money changes hands. During the collaboration brewery process, brewers might share information about styles, novel beer ingredients, and different ways of brewing. Brewers during the collaboration process may also share information on other

111

issues pertinent to the network, such as legal issues or information about breweries operating outside the state of Florida.

For the network, this research examined the number of times a brewery made a collaboration beer with another brewery. The distribution of this network reveals the pattern of who participates in collaboration brewing and who does not. The thickness of the lines indicates the number of times a brewery made multiple collaborations with a brewery. Because this research asks the role of place in establishment and success in craft brewery expansion, the collaboration network is divided by geographic region.

Figure 23: Collaboration network

112

Exploring the connections in the network, the median of the collaboration network is 1, while the brewery with the highest degree (or the highest number of brewers making a collaboration beer with them) is Cigar City, with a degree of 20 (Figure

24). The degree of 20 for Cigar City is well above the median for the network, suggesting the highly connected position of the brewery. The median weight for this network is also

1, meaning that most breweries made only one collaboration beer with another brewery.

Cigar City has a weight of 37, meaning that this brewery not only made frequent collaborations with others, but most often made repeat collaboration beers with other brewers.

es N

C S

Figure 24. Collaboration network of FBG breweries by degree, regions are abbreviated: N-North, S-South, C-Central, W-West.

113

Two breweries occupy the top spot for closeness centrality. Bone Island Brewing and Florida Keys Brewing have a closeness centrality measure of 1. However, this is misleading because they form their own clique of two; that is, these two breweries are connected only to each other. The most closely connected brewery in the collaboration network is, again, Cigar City, followed by Green Room, Tampa Bay Brewing Company,

7venth Sun Brewery, and Green Bench. With the exception of Green Room Brewing, these breweries all lie in the West region. More specifically they all lie in the Tampa Bay area. Closeness centrality in the collaboration network might suggest friendship, as in this undirected network, a tie between two breweries indicates sharing on some level. In fact, one might consider the network is a directed network in which all ties reflect both in and out degrees. If two breweries make a beer together, certainly then, each brewery “chose” the other (i.e. they like each other enough to make a beer together). The thickness of the lines indicates the weight of the connection. In this case, a weighted connection represents two brewers who made more than one collaboration beer together. Cigar City frequently brews multiple collaborations, and is thus the most connected (Figure 24 and

25).

114

W N

Figure 25. Collaboration network by closeness centrality, regions are abbreviated: N- North, S-South, C-Central, W-West.

The emergence of regional leaders in the craft brewers' network. When considering geography in the measure of closeness, the network appears to overcome large distances by means of collaboration. At the center of the network is the West region, or the Central region. Two distant breweries might serve as a bridge to unite those regions (Figure 26). Color shading of the nodes in Figure 23-26 indicates its closeness to the center of the network. Funky Buddha stands out as the most centrally connected node in the South region. There is a strong tie between Funky Buddha and Cigar City, yet physically, 267 miles separate these breweries. In disparate geographical locations, these breweries share information from one region to another.

115

When analyzing the betweeness centrality of the collaboration network, a few changes emerge. Cigar City once again occupies the top spot in the network. The betweeness centrality measures the number of times this particular node (the brewery, in this case) lies on the shortest path between other nodes (other breweries). Some of the breweries that occupied a close position in terms of centrality drop out of the picture in terms of betweeness. Cigar City still commands a powerful position in the network because it lies the most often on the path between other craft breweries. Interviews with

Florida craft breweries confirmed this betweeness. Following Cigar City, Green Room,

Funky Buddha, Southern Brewing, Tomoka Brewery, and Intuition Ale Works also occupy a well-connected betweeness position in the collaboration network (Figure 26).

W N

Figure 26. Collaboration Network by betweenness centrality, regions are abbreviated: N- North, S-South, C-Central, W-West.

116

Eigenvector centrality measures the degree of influence an actor has on the network, by examining the number of “powerful friends” the actor has (Figure 26). This measure may reveal not only brewers that are central to the network but also influential in the control and exchange of power. Cigar City maintains influence over the network. Yet other, much smaller breweries exhibit a measure of power over the network as well.

7venth Sun and Saint Somewhere, both of which occupy small spaces and have limited distribution, exhibited a larger share of influence than might be expected given their size.

These brewers represent individuals that are considered the finest, most innovative brewers in the network (Figure 27). The thicker lines represent multiple collaborations between breweries, and the bolder typeface indicates the strength of the breweries’ position as measured by betweenness centrality.

At the center lies Cigar City, but spaced around it, other breweries maintain a

“gatekeeper” type role for their region. The gatekeeper serves as “the mediator…who regulates the flow of information or goods to his or her group (Nooy et al., 2005, p.152).”

The gatekeeper acts as a broker across secondary structural holes, which are “the ties within one group, which give the opportunities to exploit structural holes within that group ” (p.152). In the collaboration network, the gatekeepers represent the way information flows in and around the larger, centrally connected Cigar City. Funky

Buddha in the South region, for example, has not only made several collaboration beers with Cigar City, but with Tequesta as well. Information passed from Funky Buddha to

Tequesta to Due South and then onto the rest of the South region breweries. In the

Gainesville area of the North region, only Alligator Brewing and Swamphead participated in the network. Swamphead created multiple collaborations with Cigar City,

117

thus information passes to the North region via Swamphead. Jacksonville, by contrast, has numerous breweries participate in the network. Both Green Room and Intuition Ale

Works jostle for position in this area, but they too pass information along the network.

The Central region lacks a regional gatekeeper, although Redlight Redlight stood poised to take that spot.

W N

C S

Figure 27. Collaboration network by eigenvector centrality. Fringing the connected network in the images above, the unconnected dots represent breweries that made no collaboration beers between the years 2013 to 2015. Of the 87 members of the Florida Brewers Guild, 35 have no connections in the collaboration network (Table 10). The network analysis revealed no clear pattern explaining why these breweries do not participate in the collaboration network, either

118

from date of founding, the region, the type of brewery, or from zoning. Choice to participate or not in the network might represent a combination of any of these factors.

Table 10. Breweries in the FBG with no connection to the collaboration network. Label Date of Region Type Zoning founding category Ragtime Tavern <[1993.06]> 1 2 2 A1A Ale works <[1999.0]> 1 2 2 McGuire's Irish Pub <[2003.04]> 1 2 2 Pensacola Bay <[2010.11]> 1 1 3 Grayton Beer Co <[2011.05]> 1 1 1 First Magnitude <[2012.03]> 1 1 1 Props Craft <[2012.05]> 1 2 2 Oyster City <[2014.08]> 1 1 3 Ancient City <[2015.08]> 1 1 3 Total for North region 9 Orlando Brewing <[2003.05]> 2 1 2 Hourglass Brewing <[2012.08]> 2 2 2 Bugnutty <[2013.09]> 2 1 2 Ormond Brewing <[2013.09]> 2 1 1 New Smyrna Beach <[2014.01]> 2 1 3 Brewing Daytona Beach <[2014.06]> 2 1 2 Orchid Island <[2014.08]> 2 1 3 Crooked Can <[2015.03]> 2 1 3 Infinite Brewing <[2015.03]> 2 1 1 Central 28 <[2015.07]> 2 1 1 Total for Central 10 region Two Henrys <[2012.05]> 3 1 3 Ft. Myers Brewing <[2013.02]> 3 1 1 R Bar <[2013.1]> 3 2 2 3 Daughters Brewing <[2013.12]> 3 1 1 Motorworks <[2014.01]> 3 1 1 Six Ten <[2014.02]> 3 1 1 Stilt House <[2014.1]> 3 1 2 (Table continues on next page)

119

(Table continues from previous page)

Marker 48 <[2015.11]> 3 1 2 Pinellas Ale Works <[2016.01]> 3 1 2 Total for West region 9 Naples Beach <[2012.11]> 4 1 1 Barrel of Monks <[2013.11]> 4 1 1 Biscayne Bay <[2014.09]> 4 1 1 Concrete Beach <[2015.05]> 4 1 1 Waterfront Brewery <[2015.09]> 4 2 2 Bangin' Banjo <[2015.09]> 4 1 1 Accomplice <[2015.11]> 4 1 1 26 Degree <[2015.9]> 4 1 2 Total for South region 8

Breweries outside the collaboration network may exhibit other ways to control power over space in the form of external network collaborations and festival participation. Outside network collaborations might occur with other, non-FBG breweries

(the most common type of non-network connection) or with other community entities

(Table 11). The Central region emerges as dominant in terms of collaboration. About

51% of the observed non-network collaborations took place with brewers in the Central

South region. Although the West region contains the largest number of craft breweries in the state, this region participated in a disproportionate number of collaborations, both in and out of the network. The other regions contain nearly equal numbers of breweries, yet uneven numbers of collaborations. The North region had the least number of outside network collaborations, although a proportionate number of breweries without connections to the collaboration network. The lack of participation in the network may reflect the regional character and political/economic barriers present in this region, or

120

simply a reflection of the lack of willingness or ability of breweries in this area to participate.

Table 11. Regional non-network connections: total of the non-network collaborations recorded during the observation period. Name Number of breweries Number of Outside network in region Breweries with no collaboration count in-network collaborations North region: North 18 9 34 Central region: 16 10 47 NE/Central West region: Central 31 9 140 South South region: South 20 8 51 Total 87

Brewer landscape "refaceting" By far, the most often talked about point in the interview process involved the concepts of community, and collaboration. This included the inner circle community connections, which the collaboration network analysis helped make clear, and the connections with the larger community around the brewery. These community members did not even need to necessarily love beer; rather just have an understanding of the role the craft brewery can play in offering assistance. While talking with Leigh of 3 Daughters Brewing, she offered a story about the positive effect craft brewers have on other businesses:

“While 3 Daughters was under construction in 2013, a guy from BrewFab walked in, and asked if they needed tanks. He told us he had the technology to bend steel. Mike (Leigh’s husband) said, We need little tanks…a little bright tank. So the guy from BrewFab made them a little bright tank….BrewFab is now booked 60 weeks out. We also asked if they could put an American flag on the tank…all the others are made in China.”

121

Even if breweries chose not to collaborate with other FBG members, they frequently worked with other community partners and other breweries that do not participate in the FBG. For example, Wayne of Cigar City collaborated with several out of state breweries, including New Belgium, Evil Twin, B. Necktar, Boulevard Brewing, and Terrapin Brewing, among others. Orlando Brewing and 3 Daughters had several collaboration beers with community partners such as 3 Daughters collaboration with

University of South Florida St. Petersburg. In terms of frequency of mention, during the interviews, brewers mentioned the word or concept of “community” the most of any other phrase. 100% of brewers mentioned the “craft beer community.” This included customers, both local and non-local, supporters of the business, and other breweries.

As Table 11 illustrates, however, most of these breweries still have some type of collaboration with individuals or groups outside the network. This dovetails with the idea of embedded economy: that these breweries, while still considering elements of the market economy, seek out and value inter-personal relationships with the community.

Brewpubs make up seven of the breweries that do not participate in any type of collaboration, even outside the network. Of those that remain, eight of these just opened in 2015. After interviewing Pinellas Ale Works, Accomplice, 26 Degrees and Bangin’

Banjo, it is clear that this does not constitute an absence of desire; rather that these breweries remain focused on opening the brewery versus community partnerships as of yet. The last few, to some extent, face geographic isolation. Central 28, for example, lies in a more agricultural area of central Florida, thus making it hard to connect to the network, or community members; as of yet, that area remains undeveloped relative to the coastal regions.

122

When the brewers mentioned community, often they involved invocation of place.

Leigh from 3 Daughters said “The geography of beer is very comparable to wine in the

80’s. We have 4 wines, and it went to 40-50 wines. We really started spreading our wings….We want to be a great regional brewery, and leaders in the community.”

Brewers often talked about the desire to make their place a community place. Yonathan of 26 Degrees stated he wanted the brewery to “...be like your living room.” Place, then, is more than place, it is community. In fact, 65% of the interviewees mentioned specifically the desire to make their brewery a meeting place for the community. The invocation of “place” makes up a piece of this meeting place. For example, Matt of

Darwin’s Brewing mentioned the desire for Darwin’s to “...Become a center or a loci for local people and local businesses to come.” Darwin’s sponsors the Local Evolution Craft

Market, which brings together food vendors with craft artisans and craft beer. Matt from

Accomplice shared his idea for “Pounds for Pints,” where neighbors could bring in their loads of citrus or other fruits and help him brew a pint (or several) from the fruit.

Even more than making beer with the public, craft brewers helped the community.

Every brewery in the study has one or several charities that they help fund. For example,

Christine at Marker 48 shared that Marker 48 has a rotating tap every week, the proceeds of which go to help fund a different charity. This spirit of philanthropy marks a hallmark of craft breweries. One thing that stands out, however, is the role that craft brewers can play as intermediaries. This may happen between the small organization and larger policy makers, or, more often, as an intermediary between the small organization and the rest of the community. Because of the social status that craft brewers command, they can act as a bridge from individuals to a much larger audience. John from Funky Buddha talked

123

about the urban garden that started next to Funky. The brewery “…used as much as possible from the garden…[such as]star fruit. But it’s people from Oakland Park that started it.” Funky Buddha called attention to a need, and the community responded to it and changed it. Funky Buddha, among others, can change a place without even fundamentally changing the space, just by taking over that space. For example, festivals often take over parking lots or empty grass lots, and transform that space for celebration rather than a blank landscape (Figure 28).

Figure 28. Hops for Heroes event: taking over spaces and changing them (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright 2016 by April Watson). Brewers can extensively change spaces, from that spirit of serving the community. Luis from Wynwood talked at length about his desire to change his community for good, as well as helping the craft beer community of Miami. He said “I only give free beer to non-profit organizations. I help a kid’s baseball league, they are

Puerto Rican…I want to help the people that are here.” Wynwood often garners criticism as a “gentrified space,” yet in talking to the brewers there, they mentioned the desire to

124

help the people who live in that area. All of the art at Wynwood Brewing came from

Miami artists. As Luis stated in the interview, “There is no art that is NOT a Miami artist…all of the shirts, cups are made here…not the hats unfortunately.”

Building social capital. The most pervasive and common theme that emerged in interviews in the craft brewers of Florida consists of the spirit of collaboration and community they make with each other. At every brewery they mentioned connections and ties with the other breweries of Florida. For example, Christine at Marker 48 said that

“We have a special brewing system, and we called the manufacturer and he told us that no one in the state had this system, except Barley Mow. So we called Barley Mow and they said, sure come over and brew a batch!” Todd from Tampa Bay Brewing shared the most enthusiastic feelings about the community, “we are not competition, it’s a brotherhood…we have the true spirit of a pub, a family. We were even open on

Christmas. It would have been like having a closed sign at Mom’s.”

Throughout the study, brewers mentioned over and over again the connections that they had made, particularly with Cigar City. For example, Todd from Tampa Bay mentioned that Cigar City’s Joey Redner worked with them for a while. Joey also shared that he worked at Dunedin Brewery. From here, after the creation of Cigar City, brewers most often took a turn interning or just helping. Jonathan of J. Wakefield worked at Cigar

City. Matt from Accomplice drove around the state checking out other breweries. John from Orlando invited Matt to work in the brewery for a day. Over and over again, brewers shared stories of a community built on cooperation, not (exclusively) competition. This spirit of collaboration, of brotherhood, extended into the naming of beers, and into creating scholarships for each other. Doble Imperial, one of the beers

125

produced by Orlando Brewing, reflected the connections of the first wave of craft brewers in Florida. The Doble family founded Tampa Bay Brewing Company in Tampa, the second oldest brewery in the state. Several of the state's oldest craft breweries occurred in the Central region, in particular, Orlando Brewing and Florida Beer

Company. Florida Beer Company represented a combination of several of the earliest craft brewers in the state, who eventually merged to create Florida Beer Company in

2003. These early innovators set the tone for future generations of brewers.

One of the hallmarks of craft brewers, as shared previously, involves the making of collaboration beers. Many of the brewers stated that making a collaboration beer is indeed partially motivated for marketing purposes, illustrating again that craft brewers had an awareness of market-based economic principles. Yet this was not the only reason and far from the reason given with the most emotion. Brewers expressed passion when talking about collaboration beers. When asked to name those brewers with whom they would like to work or have worked, brewers frequently named brewers at close geographic distance to themselves. As Yonathan from 26 Degrees said, “We want to keep that local feel.” However, some of the larger or more established brewers mentioned working with brewers from across the state. The connection between the established

West region and the South region was strong. Of all the breweries named (and brewers could choose anyone), they frequently named breweries that occurred in these two regions, emphasizing, perhaps, the influence these individuals have in the broader craft brewing network. John from Funky Buddha summed it up the best:

"...Because the two breweries are friendly and working together on a beer can be a fun way to combine forces and create something artistic and unique. This is how most of our collabs start - because we like the people

126

at the other brewery or maybe like/respect their beers a lot. Collabs give us opportunities to try something a little more out of the box. For example we did a smoked Mango strong ale with Wynwood that was a little crazy and strange, but because it was a collab I think people look at it as a fun experiment and can appreciate that genre-pushing aspect even more. Collabs can be a good way to generate buzz. Seeing two breweries you like working together on something can be exciting for customers, who may anticipate the release. Collabs are good marketing. Each brewery has their own circle of influence, and working together can introduce customers to the brewery that may not have previously tried their beers, or wouldn't have known about them otherwise." John’s words reflect the often very multifaceted nature of the craft beer scene.

Craft brewers have full awareness of economic principles, including the need to keep things fresh. Yet, at the same time, these collaborations often express friendship, affinity ties, and the ability to span geographic distances.

Transforming from individual to connected: the role of the festival

Craft brewers demonstrated consciousness of financial principles, including building brands, the introduction of new innovations, and the cost benefit of working with competitors on projects. At the same time, these collaborations often convey camaraderie, affinity ties, and the willingness to span geographic spaces. Collaborations, either in network or out of network, characterize one way that craft breweries might connect with one another. Breweries also participate in knowledge sharing and connections in other ways. In examining the role of the festival network amongst FBG craft breweries, certain patterns emerged. Festivals celebrating a specific food or drink item occur frequently throughout the year in Florida. Returning to diffusion of innovations, how a craft brewer joins the network, what barriers prohibit entry, and in what ways they overcome these barriers are often expressed at the festivals. Festivals frequently represent the point of entry for the craft brewer. Many brewers begin brewing

127

as home brewers, and then compete at homebrewing competitions, which often occur simultaneously with festivals celebrating craft beer. Most brewers do not begin alone; rather, they participate in these festivals/competitions, and then attract the attention of other brewers and investors. Larger, influential brewers try the homebrewers' beers, offer advice, critique, or even jobs/apprenticeships at the more established breweries.

Individuals already in the network have chances to see what other breweries create, as well as share their product on a larger scale with festival attendees. Festivals offer both verbal, and non-verbal visual clues as to who is important in the network, what elements of place attachment get shared, and the ways to go from homebrewer to established brewery. For example, one can see which brewers win prizes by signs displayed on their tables, and thus identify prestigious brewers (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Sign displayed at a craft beer festival illustrating an award winning brewery, demonstrating how festivals give new brewers cues as to the importance of the more established brewers (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright 2016 by April Watson). The festival network reflects geographical influence, as does the collaboration network, in looking at all of the members of the FBG as nodes, and the edges between

128

them, which denote the 17 regional craft beer festivals in Florida (Figure 30). Appendix

C lists these festivals and attendees. The colors of the edges represent the festivals. The top three festivals (based on the number of connections) are the Festival of Florida Beers shown in pink, held at the Cajun Cafe on the Bayou; and the Bad Ass Beer Festival held at Tampa Bay Brewing Company, shown in green. Both these festivals occur in the

Tampa Bay area, which is in the West region. The blue lines represent the Orlando Beer

Festival held in Orlando. The remaining festivals have relatively few connections, thus are not as visible in the network.

W S C

Figure 30. Festival network by degree, regions are abbreviated by letter: N-North, S- South, C-Central, and W-West. Comparing this network to the collaboration network, new breweries emerge with large numbers of ties, since that degree means the number of edges that start from a node 129

(Figure 30). In the festivals network, the median degree is 27, meaning that each brewery that is in the network has 27 possible connections to other breweries. Again Cigar City is the node with the highest degree. However, following closely behind are Darwin's, Big

Storm, Funky Buddha, and Coppertail. Referring to influence and the sharing of knowledge and power, this means these breweries have numerous opportunities to dominate their network and their region, if they chose.

Another indicator of influence and power in the festival network includes the betweenness centrality measure, showing the number of times a brewery appears on the shortest path between two other breweries. The position of influence is held by Funky

Buddha and Cigar City, which act as brokers in their respective regions (Figure 31). The

West region dominates the other regions in terms of key actors in the system and has several other breweries that occupy a space of authority, including Darwin Brewing and

Big Storm (Figure 31).

130

W S C

Figure 31. Festivals network by between centrality, regions are abbreviated by letter: N- North, S-South, C-Central, and W-West. The calculation of eigenvector centrality mirrors the closeness centrality in this case (Figure 32). Cigar City has the top spot in terms of eigenvector centrality. This measure demonstrates the authority or centrality of a node in terms of the overall network; the entire structure of the network is considered rather than immediate ties.

However, in this case the influence these breweries have appears to extend to both the neighborhood and the entire network. This may reflect, however, just how dense this particular network is with the many possible ties each brewery has at a festival.

131

W S C

Figure 32. Festivals network by eigenvector centrality, regions are abbreviated by letter: N-North, S-South, C-Central, and W-West.

In conducting interviews with craft brewers about festivals, festivals may represent more of a philanthropic exercise than they appear to otherwise. Many craft beer festivals are given to sponsor particular local charities, or individual brewers bring forward local charities to help make them more visible to the community at large (Figure

33). Festivals also involve donations on the part of the brewery. Julie from Pair O Dice stated that festivals often involved donated beer and manpower. Luis from Wynwood shared that he “…wouldn’t do any for profit events.” Thus, participation in this network involves more than marketing. Rather, it embodies the desire of craft brewers to share

132

with the community, possibly for a cause, as in Hops for Heroes event in Tampa. This event held in St. Petersburg, Florida, reflected a partnership of local breweries, brew clubs and home brewers to sponsor and benefit wounded veterans with the Road Warrior

Foundation.

Figure 33. Craft brewers make visible the smaller community groups around them (Photographed by April Watson. Copyright 2016 by April Watson). Looking at the festival network reveals the possible versus the actual connections between craft breweries in Florida. Attendees at the same festivals have the opportunity to unite and share information with each other and with the larger craft beer appreciating community. Studying these measures gives the potential role that each brewery might fill in examining spaces of bonding and power.

Geography limits where brewers can or want to travel. In the above network, the two most prevalent events happen in the Tampa Bay/Pinellas area, with the third (and fewer connections) held in Orlando. Thus, South and North Florida face geographic

133

disadvantage in terms of attendance and participating in the sharing of knowledge and innovation.

The craft brewer as a political warrior and as a weaver. Craft brewers have the power to create shortcuts, or alternatives in a place based system. They straddle the warrior and weaver work described by Stevenson et al., 2007 (see literature review). The craft brewing community creates alternative pathways by which the individual citizen or small community based group can pass through. A more local example of this very process happened in Florida during the years 2014 and 2015. In 2013, craft brewing in

Florida made up an $875.8 billion dollar impact, yet ranked 46th in breweries per capita nationwide (Craft Brewers Association, 2014). From the death of Tampa Florida Brewing

Company to the current explosion, “…growth was limited for Florida Breweries, and they had to scratch and claw for every gain they made (Beer for the Daddy, 2015, p. 1).”

Part of this fight involved legal battles over distribution and container size.

This political action reveals some of the more radical side of the craft brewing world, in which craft brewers might often have to fight to create space in the economy for an industry that consciously defies conventional social-economic relationships. In the

2014 Legislative session, twelve craft beer-related bills were proposed. Among the points made by the bills included language that preserved the spirit of Prohibition: consumers need protection from too much production. Florida had in place a tourism exemption which allowed large scale breweries (i.e. Anheuser Busch) to sell beer on site as a part of a tourist attraction. The bills proposed during the 2014 legislative session questioned whether craft breweries operated outside current laws “not clear if they meet the tourism exemption (Brewers Law, 2014).” Both craft breweries and beer fans rallied in

134

Tallahassee to challenge these bills, which eventually died in the House. In 2015, Florida

Retail Federation files legal challenge to Florida Department of Business and Regulation, seeking to clarify if tasting rooms meet the “tourism exemption.” Florida Independent

Spirits Association files a similar suit. The response of craft breweries and craft beer fans took on many of the aspects of a true social movement. The brewers put in place calls to action, which served as framing processes, or ways to share meanings and definitions

(Stevenson et al., 2007). These framing processes resonated with citizens and called them to action. For example, campaigns emerged from the FBG, as well as the broader beer appreciating community, with social media trends like “Don’t Tread on Craft Beer,”

“Craft Commander,” and #Iamcraftbeer.

Craft brewers also created mobilizing structures, which highlighted the problem and advocated for change. This gave citizens political opportunities and/or called awareness to the issues at hand. Once again the Florida Brewers Guild filled this role, with the guild calling for and raising crowd source funding. They raised nearly half of the money to pay their legal bills from crowd source funding. “If they keep us distracted with things like keeping our tasting rooms open, they think we won’t be attempting to get things like limited self-distribution or franchise law reform” Mike Halker, FBG president

(Halker, 2015). Due South’s Mike Halker as well as Cigar City’s Joey Redner were among those that went and battled the legislation for rights for standard growler sizes as well the need to preserve the tasting room. Indeed, as many pointed out during the 2014-

2015 legislative sessions, the tasting room was often the only way the little guys-the smaller breweries-stayed afloat. In April 2015, the Florida Senate passed the bill that allows 64-ounce growlers. Craft brewers all over Florida rejoiced, although many

135

brewers have commented that legal restrictions continue to limit growth in the South

(Hoalst-Pullen, 2016).

Perhaps even more than political action, however, craft brewers fulfill the role of the weaver. Weavers bring together “developing strategic and conceptual linkages, building new collaborative coalition building; [and] communicating messages (Stevenson et al., 2007).” Weavers create vertical linkages based on space and locality by facilitating alliances across the craft brewing world and complementary social change efforts within their geographic region or perhaps intra-state areas. As mentioned previously, the hallmark of the craft brewer includes philanthropy. Craft brewers, then, help to build more than an embedded economy, but a moral one: "moral economy" as exchange

"justified in relation to social or moral sanctions, as opposed to the operation of free market forces" (Kloppenburg, et al., 1996, p. 36).

136

Chapter Five: Discussion

Diffusion and Innovation

Considering the growth and spread of craft brewing in Florida, the importance of examining the role of place in the success of founding and the invocation of place use becomes necessary. Craft brewing in Florida is following a different sort of diffusion than the traditional models of internal influence or mixed influence explain (Figures 8-10).

These models suggest that either only internal sources of influence matter to the diffusion of an innovation or that a combination of external influences and internal influences affect adoption rates, respectively. Roger's (1995) diffusion analysis study assumes that early innovators/adopters in a system do so because of the influence of external sources such as television or mass media (external influence). However, interviews with Florida craft breweries suggest that internal influences such as homebrewing clubs had more influence on the spread of craft breweries than any type of advertising. Homebrewing clubs, or any propagator of innovation, represent channels by which information moves on the landscape. Innovation diffusion depends on the passing along of information to new, potential adopters of that innovation. Once the actors in the system adopt the new innovation, in what way do they remain cohesive? Craft brewing is different than technological innovations, for example, because craft brewing is inherently a more social act than adopting a new computer technology. Although one might adopt the practice of craft brewing, new styles, techniques, ingredients, methods, etc., continually change.

Unlike most diffusion studies focused on marketing a new product, craft brewing does

137

not per se involve purchasing new items, but instead needs a source of novelty, or the interjection of new ideas into the system. In addition, barriers to entry as well hindrances to entry may prohibit adopters from fully embracing craft brewing, which in this case means actually opening a craft brewery.

In the craft brewing diffusion of Florida, the shape of the diffusion resembles a long tailed S curve, showing that the diffusion had an initial slow growth followed by rapid expansion. The shape of this distribution does not follow a normal distribution; instead the graph skews to the right. Comparing the actual growth rates of craft breweries to Roger's 1995 model of innovation adopters, this initial lag may reflect reluctance on the part of the adopters to take a risk, a lack of exposure to the early innovators, or the need to learn new skills and/or gain social acceptance for the new innovation before the innovation adoption will accelerate. It is also possible that other factors, such as economic or political barriers, prevent adopters from fully accepting the new innovation.

Florida craft brewery expansion is driven by a process that involves learning from others, which is often slow to expand, but once adoption occurs, may accelerate at a fast pace (Young, 2009). It is also probable that this process is a combination of complex factors which are not all immediately apparent from the diffusion models given by

Equations 1 and 2 alone. With knowledge gleaned from interviews and observations of craft brewers in Florida, the external model or even the mixed influence model make less sense than the internal influence model, that it is need for social acceptance and learning that led to the initial lag in craft brewing expansion. External influence gives knowledge of the craft brewing industry, such as a festival or from a brewer's website. However, advertising for craft brewers on any platform is rare, other than social media, which is

138

free. Word of mouth, more than advertising or mass media, helped spread craft brewing on Florida's landscape.

The shape of the diffusion of craft brewing resembles that of the classic hybrid corn diffusion model done by Ryan and Gross (1943). This adoption by direct observation led to an initial slow growth followed by rapid expansion. Ryan and Gross modeled adoption rates of hybrid corn amongst farmers, which was mostly influenced by the direct observation of their fellow famers. Early risk takers adopted the corn species, and the farmers observed the process, then made a “rational choice” decision to adopt hybrid corn. The hybrid corn model suggests that innovation requires a few adopters to make a risky decision to adopt a new process, who then serve as models for the people in the social system around them to first learn from, and then to make a rational choice to adopt the practice. “People will want to see how it works for others over a period of time before trying it themselves. These are variously known as social learning models or social learning models based on direct observation” (Young, 2009, p. 1900). In the Florida craft brewing movement, some of the same forces act on the adoption of craft brewing as an innovation. Rather than per se observing risk in the adoption of the process, craft brewing inherently involves a learning curve. This may indicate the strength of internal influence and social learning (i.e. learning by imitation). Thus, the expansion of the Florida craft brewing tradition fits with the hybrid corn model, an initial exposure to the innovation, followed by an observation and learning period, and then rapid adoption.

The study of craft brewers in Florida reveals that although the early innovation process involved perhaps experimentation on one’s own, eventually the individual would either join a homebrewing club, visit homebrew shops, or volunteer to work at a brewery

139

as an informal apprentice in order to in time found their own brewery. Even if brewers had some exposure to the concept of craft brewing, often they need and desire additional training to actually make decent products. Additionally, the process of craft brewing involves time, patience, and physical labor. Personal choice as well as a desire to connect with others may influence the decision to connect with other like-minded individuals.

Regionality and the influence of place on adoption of innovation. External influences of the regional qualities of place also act on the uneven diffusion of craft brewers in Florida. Regional qualities such as the overall political inclination, the dominant economic activities, the general landscape character of the place, and even legal restrictions act on the ability of the individual to adopt the craft brewing innovation. In viewing the results of the spatial diffusion analysis, there appeared to be some barriers to craft brewery expansion in Florida, which were removed after 2011, or an influential person/brewery entered the network at that time, or a combination of these factors. Bottle size laws in Florida, as well as the three tier distribution laws, limited growth for Florida breweries, and "they had to scratch and claw for every gain they made (DeNote, 2014, p.

11)." The introduction of Lee's law changed that picture to an extent. This law changed a

Florida law that strictly regulated the size of beer containers. For decades, packaged beer in Florida came in just three sizes — 12 ounces, 16 ounces or 32 ounces. However, the law changed in 2001, with an unintentional result: It permitted beer to be sold in any container up to a quart, or a gallon or more — but not in between (Scherberger, 2012).

This prompted the first spurt of growth, or when the first true early innovators joined the scene, the microbrewer. Yet these microbreweries still dealt with the influence of the regional place characteristics in terms of establishment.

140

Lamme and Meindl (2002) describe the Tampa Bay area as the area of greatest innovation and change in Florida, whereas Pensacola and Jacksonville are both largely conservative, agricultural areas. In many ways, north Florida has the strongest regional identity, and yet only Jacksonville has a significant number of breweries. Neolocalist theory suggested that the appeal of historic buildings, which helps convey a sense of place attachment (Flack, 1997; Schnell and Reese 2014) would be attractive for craft brewer neolocalists, yet most of Florida has no expansion in well maintained historic areas until at least 2013. Jacksonville alone has growth prior to the 2013 expansion.

Particularly comparing the two areas with the strongest identity, the North region and the West region, these two districts have different ways of creating place attachment, with apparently dissimilar abilities to attract craft breweries. The West region has the most breweries; the North region has relatively few (although not the least). The North region also has the most breweries situated in historic buildings or districts. Neolocalism involves a return to the local, with the development of a new local identity. Perhaps places with an established visual history have less need for the creation of the neolocal.

Such places have visual reminders of the past on the landscape and as such have specific architectural cues that give the resident and the visitor an idea about that particular place.

Places with particularly run down landscapes, such as the West region's industrial districts, may have an established identity, but need assistance to remember that identity, i.e. the function that a craft brewer can play in a place based system. This represents the way that craft brewing begins, with many points in this process during which the individual experiences internal influence. This process of diffusion must begin with a seed, such as an innovator.

141

The Brewpub: the front runner and the conservative choice. In the Florida network, the earliest innovators are people who came from a brewing tradition, with some dependent on food production. The first 14 breweries in Florida may represent the earliest innovators in a new system, the craft brewing tradition. However, it is later entrants, the early adopters, which had the greatest impact on subsequent diffusion and thus adoption of place attachment. The first two brewpubs established themselves geographically in places of potential, on opposite sides of Tampa Bay. This idea hopscotches from Tampa Bay to Jacksonville/St. Augustine area, to Orlando, and to the

Space Coast, in the Titusville area. The initial innovators of craft brewing in Florida were most likely brewpubs, such as Dunedin Brewery, which reflects a strong connection to

Scotland, and Tampa Bay Brewing Company, whose founders, the Dobles, had run a pub in England prior to settling in Tampa. Indeed, Dunedin is the sister city to Stirling in

Scotland. This also includes McGuire's Pub in Pensacola, and A1A Ale Works in

Jacksonville.

North Florida represents in many ways, conservative, wild Florida, with a return and a call to the "true" Southern roots. Breaking down north Florida further, the

Panhandle and Gainesville areas in particular evoke the agricultural conservatism of “old

Florida.” North Florida in general has more breweries situated in officially designated historic districts. The physical landscape of North Florida is important and often evoked in the imagery and beer names of North Florida brewers. There is less need for the reminder and creation of the local when the region retains much of the historic character of the past. Jacksonville, on the other hand, shares many similarities with the Tampa Bay region including areas of economic downturn and heavy industrial use, as well as

142

featuring a military base. Jacksonville also features numerous historic properties and districts; businesses or property owners often have restrictions on the types of businesses or changes they make to a property. Thus, while North Florida's conservatism acts as an inhibitor of craft brewery growth, Jacksonville's decaying urban landscape has prompted the desire and need for growth. The desire for change stands at odds with the tendency towards tradition or conservatism that “Old Florida” often experiences. The political conservatism as well the more traditional nature of the culture in North Florida does not inhibit brewery growth per se, rather it makes the craft brewer of this region more cautious and more prone to making conservative choices in identity creation.

The introduction of the microbrewery: the right place and the right time.

The naissance of the earliest microbreweries, then, represents the emergence of the first true innovators as categorized by Rogers (1995). When microbreweries appear in the

West region, the "seed" or in this case, the craft brewer is fostered by the more flexible nature of political affairs and economics in West Florida. Politically this area is more moderate, with more built landscapes than North Florida. Also unlike the North region, the West region has struggled with the preservation of its historic buildings and many are dilapidated. Without preserved historic districts of the North region, the West region needs craft breweries to give visual cues and written histories to specifically create a place for the residents of this region.

Politically moderate areas such as Tampa utilized historical imagery, but with distinct identity creation. The West region breweries tend to use people as a part of their identity rather than natural landscapes. Places like Dunedin, for example, have an extensive historical past, settled in 1877, and a large Scottish population (Pinellas

143

Memory, 1965). Dunedin Brewery called on the specific local history of this area, with

Scottish flags throughout the taproom as well the use of a claymore (a Scottish sword) as their symbol. Cigar City in Ybor has very overt locational beer names that invoke the regional identity of Tampa. The Tampa Bay area in particular had a strong connection to historical figures that helped change Florida's history, such as indigenous populations

(Tocobago, Temple Mound Brown), specific Latin American connections (Hunahpu, Jose

Marti) and important historical figures and events that helped the settlement of Florida

(Henry Flagler and Henry Plant, Citrus Exchange, Desoto, Invasion). By using historical figures rather than historic places, the West region breweries foster a chain of community, and a line of connection between the past and the present. In North Florida this is not necessary; the physical landscape served that function. Central and South

Florida are still finding the way to express their identities. It is in West Florida that breweries know there is an extensive history of change and unity, and this they share with the community.

The ability of the West region to foster the brewer's innovative "seed" would not be possible without the beginnings of the network in place; however risk takers are necessary to bring about change. These risk takers are more likely to be microbreweries rather than a brewpub (Table 11). Florida has few microbreweries until 2003. Long lags occurred between the founding of Florida Beer Company (the earliest microbrewery) in

1997 to the founding of Orlando Brewing in 2003. During this time, home brewers begin forming clubs to participate in that social learning aspect. But risk taking is necessary to leap from homebrewing to starting a microbrewery. While Rogers (1995) describes the earliest innovators as risk takers, with connections to scientific sources and financial

144

stability, these earliest innovators in Florida emerged slowly. It is not until about 2009 when Florida experienced the end of this early period. These early innovators establish themselves in areas of potential, such as Tampa Bay; however, brewpubs often represent a "safer bet." Brewpubs by nature have only on site production with no off site sales, thus while these brewpubs represented the desire for craft products, to gain further attention across such a large landscape, brewers needed a way to distribute. As Joey Redner shared in DeNote's 2014 book, the early days of Florida craft brewing centered on brewpubs, which, while good, could not distribute offsite. Thus, the Florida beer scene felt the need for microbreweries.

When looking at the qualities of the Early Innovators and Early Adopters, both the diffusion pattern and the network analysis make more sense. Early Adopters tend to have the maximum amount of estimation leadership, as well as use the astute implementation of innovation to sustain a dominant communication situation (Rogers,

1995). Early Innovators may take risks and have financial solvency, but Early Adopters have the power of sway, a fact which the network analysis makes abundantly clear. When influential breweries enter the landscape, they dominant the network, i.e. Cigar City.

Cigar City might represent the individual/brewery that marks the change between the

Early Innovators and Early Adopters, particular to the West region.

By contrast, the Central and South regions have struggled to catch up to the West region in terms of the number of brewers. The politically conservative Gold Coast tends to evoke the legacy of the beach, which attracted the wealthy retirees that made the Gold

Coast the Gold Coast. Much as the North region's conservatism slowed initial growth, the

145

South region has also experienced this sluggish expansion. The imagery of both the North and South regions tend to reflect the natural environment, which appeared to reflect a

"safe bet" or a more conservative choice for craft brewers. However, while the region did have natural landscapes on its coastlines, this region has never been as agricultural as the north part of Florida. The area has long been an attractant to migrants and subsequently to development. However, in general, the settlers of the area come from all over, they do not have a strong historical connection, and the area lacks much in the way of historic buildings. The South region breweries have a less developed regional character to work with for the creation of their identity. Yet, the South region has seen a great deal of expansion in the craft brewery scene in the last two years.

The Central region appears to suffer from the effect of the transition zone. While

Orlando attracts numerous visitors each year, as does Daytona Beach and the Space

Coast, this area has lacked the strong identity that the North region and the West region express. The area to the North, the Gainesville/Panhandle area, retained much of the agricultural feel. The Everglades, along with sugar cane and other agricultural fields, lie to the south, and created a large geographic boundary that prohibits much in the way of growth. Indeed, Central region’s strongest sources of identity came from the beach/coastal areas, or from Orlando.

What both the Central and South regions do possess are strong Early Adopters, particularly in the South area. Funky Buddha, which opened in 2009, is just on the cusp between the Early Innovators and Early Adopters in Florida. As shown in the network analysis, Funky Buddha served as a bridge between the innovative, neolocalist West region and the newer South region. The Central region lacked as influential a leader as

146

Funky Buddha, yet the existence of Early Innovators such as Orlando Brewing and

Florida Brewing Company in the area helped to foster growth in this region. Thus, the regional character of a place is not the only factor of importance in fostering craft breweries. Instead, it is the maintenance of strong inter-personal connections that can overcome place based barriers to craft brewery development.

Moving from homebrewer to neolocalist

Building an embedded economy. At the core of the idea of embeddedness is the importance of social relationships to all economic exchange. Embededdness is an essential component in arguments with confirmation of dense social networks and relations used to propose a high degree of embeddedness (Winter 2003). Craft brewers often build and expand upon social relationships in order to stay informed of new changes, new laws, or other important information. These social relationships may signify a form of embedded economy, with an emphasis on relationships between individuals rather than solely on rational economic choice.

This research has shown how a craft brewer transitions from an individual actor in the craft brewer system, to a neolocalist; this in turn reflects his/her ability to establish and maintain social ties with other brewers. Previous works have suggested that craft breweries have experienced such a powerful expansion due to neolocalism, or a formation of a new local. In examining the collaboration and festivals network, some of the disconnected brewers might find more success outside the beer production community. What the network does reveal consists of the structure of ties between brewers, or in others words, how they build this “embedded economy,” which outward expression reflects place attachment. The embedded, or moral, economy is not just about

147

the place but about the strength of ties between people in that place, and subsequently the construction of ties of people to that place. Why a place is important is just as much about the community of people in that place as it is the fundamental qualities of that place.

Craft breweries help make the community more visible to each other, and thus make that place more important.

The network: power, influence, and participation. Discussions of the network inherently deal with the idea of power: how much power does one node (brewer) have on a region and on the network. I argue that the combination of these measures, the networks and the diffusion analysis, illustrate the importance of social learning to the process of craft brewing and subsequently how the creation of place attachment gets expressed by actors in this system. If collaborations symbolize a way that breweries might participate in knowledge sharing and the building/maintenance of exchange relationships, then those breweries at the center of the network occupy a space that allows them to influence other, more disparate members of the network. This might take the form of place attachment, such as imagery or ingredient choice, or in other, more ephemeral elements such as political or economic control. The network reveals the strength of social ties, which in turn eventually establish social capital. Social capital or:

"…networks of civic engagement are said to: foster norms of ‘generalized reciprocity’, by creating the expectation that spontaneously given favors will be reciprocated; foster coordination and communication, [and] embody past success at collaboration, thus serving as a template for future cooperation on other issues. (Mohan and Mohan, 2002, p.193). " The transition, then, from individual to neolocalist is loaded with this complex set of relationships, which forms a web much as Lamme and Oldakowski (2007) discuss in terms of the cultural geography of Florida. The process of making collaboration beers

148

indeed fulfills the role of “generalized reciprocity” by which brewers then can create geographically-distant relationships with other brewers in the FBG. Festival attendance, reflected by the festival network, also gives individual smaller brewers the opportunity to learn from other, larger brewers.

The craft brewers’ collaboration network in Florida reveals the development of social capital amongst these brewers and how geography and identity might help or hinder that capital. Both the collaboration and festivals network illustrate the closeness, friendship and level of respect brewers command in this situation. In turn, as a result of gaining this powerful position, breweries have the opportunity to influence how newer breweries express their place attachment or values. Given Cigar City’s proclivity for not only making collaboration beers, but doing so repeatedly, with the same brewers, as well as making those beers with breweries in and out of the network, suggests that for Florida at least, the convention of making collaboration beers took off because of Cigar City.

Cigar City, as an Early Adopter of the craft brewing innovation, commands the highest position of influence, as described by Rogers (1995). Cigar City not only has had ample opportunity to participate in collaborations, emerging in the craft brewing landscape at an advantageous time, but also capitalized on this position, and gained influence because of the brewery's many collaborations.

In both the collaboration and festivals network, Cigar City stood out as the most centrally connected figure, regardless of measure. This means Cigar City wields influence on the network of craft brewers in Florida, illustrated by the fact that Cigar City helped other brewers get started and connect to the network. Often, when brewers start out on the process of opening their own brewery, they connect with other brewers to

149

create these collaboration beers and/or “contract brew” on another brewery’s system while their system begins running. Brewers might also serve as unofficial or official apprentices. Several of the brewers interviewed stated that they worked with Cigar City prior to opening, served as an apprentice, or even just learned the process of cleaning the brewery from the individuals at Cigar City.

Two elements of this network have crucial importance: what information does

Cigar City pass to the network and what might happen if this brewery ends up leaving the craft brewing community (i.e. sells to a larger producer). Brewing styles, beer styles, ingredient choices, and naming conventions get expressed to the network via these connections. Other, less tangible components also get communicated via the network: political concerns, for instance the growler battles of 2014 and 2015; the choice of symbols and names, which in turn reflect the local character of the brewery and help in the creation of place; and the importance and value of these inter-brewery connections.

The amount of influence that actors in the system exhibit reflects their relative position in the network as well as influence the way neolocalism is expressed in the particular state or region. In other words, when an individual join the network he/she experienced much sway from the symbols, the signs, and the values of the most influential members of the network. Although collaborations took place prior to Cigar City’s introduction to the network, they were relatively few. This may be explained by the fact that many of the breweries simply did not exist then.

The network analysis reveals no clear reason why brewers chose not to participate in the network. Regionality, type of brewery (microbrewery, brewpub, or contract brewer), zoning and/or date of founding exhibit only weak correlations to either the

150

closeness centrality or betweenness centrality of a brewer to the network. Likely combinations of these factors act on the ability or willingness of a brewer to participate in collaboration beers. Interviews with craft brewers suggested that many of the breweries that are more recent additions to the network have not yet brewed collaboration beers due to investment in starting up their own brewery. For example, Yonathan of 26 Degrees stated that he and his partner are focusing on set up inside the brewery instead of participating in collaborations. Yet he did state that they had plans for collaborations, particularly with other regional craft brewers like Bangin' Banjo. Their focus was to

"…keep it local."

In terms of identity, then, brewers in the network receive multiple sets of information: from the city space they occupy and from their more ephemeral connections to the craft brewing network. These ideas about the value of place attachment, and the deeply embedded ideas about the spirit of community, or the “brotherhood,” gets introduced and reinforced continuously by participating in the network. The physical space of the city delivers messages to the brewer as well. Conservative agricultural North

Florida may emphasize the uniquely local and/or “natural” space, while Jacksonville, similar to Tampa in terms of underused industrial areas and run down historic areas, captures that same spirit and need for a rebuilding of the “new local.” The area has history, breweries help residents remember it.

Regional leaders. As the collaboration and festival network analysis illustrated, in each region, leaders, or influential actors, emerge as a result of connections to this network. This position holds power, as that brewery often leads in the introduction of change or the passing of information to the network. The brewery must establish many

151

points of collaboration and knowledge sharing along the network. A few of the most popular breweries stand out as also the most influential (those with the most betweenness). Collaborations and festival attendance have particularly important roles in knowledge sharing. One of the most striking features of the craft beer world consists of their ability to share information amongst themselves, seemingly without any spirit of competition. As Yonathan of 26 Degrees stated, there is "...No need to keep a secret, the same thing has been around for thousands of years.” As such, collaboration serves as a way to discuss new innovations in the craft brewing world, and also unites brewers who lie at great distance from one another, and begins the process of building regional leaders.

In each region, one or more breweries seemed to stand out as the most connected in that area, especially with regard to the betweenness centrality measure (Figure 30). This betweenness gives the brewers power over what information passes to the other two brewers. This type of role has features of the “gatekeeper” role, or in other words, power over what information passes through the gate (de Nooy, et al, 2005). This gatekeeper role acts as if a person at a door, standing between two rooms, and controlling the flow of information between the two rooms. While brewers might glean new information from social media, the diffusion analysis made clear that internal influence, or communication and learning between brewers, is more important to the spread and success of craft breweries. Thus, this gatekeeper role is crucial for success of regional craft breweries.

Other brewers exert influence on the network as well. While Cigar City may hold a central position in the network, other breweries tend to act more unobtrusively as points of stimulus, particularly in the Tampa Bay area. A few breweries appear to operate

“behind the scenes” or in the shadow of Cigar City. Southern Brewing and 7venth Sun

152

both stand out as other important actors in this system. While neither has quite the reach of Cigar City, the importance of these breweries lies in the roles they serve. Cigar City serves as the hub, but particularly Southern Brewing serves as a go-between, or weaver.

Most of the collaboration beers recorded in the observation period included impetus from

Southern Brewing, often as a special beer for a festival. Southern Brewing began as a supply store for homebrewers, and as such stands in the “gatekeeper” role of passing new innovative products or even basics to the other brewers in the region. Southern Brewing still fulfills this role in addition to producing its beers. Connections to Southern Brewing might serve to accomplish the desire for the small community that craft brewers grew out of, from home brewers to large scale production. 7venth Sun might have fit in the top spot for the West region, although many of their collaborations occur outside the network. In addition to structural prestige in the network, 7venth Sun also has social prestige. As such, Cigar City, Southern Brewing, Funky Buddha and Green Room do as well. These breweries not only serve as linkages for the network, but in interviews with craft brewers, the brewers often mentioned the innovative qualities of these brewers.

The festival network not only illustrates the importance of these regional leaders as well as the effect of Cigar City, and also this network shows the ability of other breweries to join the network. While breweries might choose not to participate in collaboration brewing, they might well chose to participate in a festival. A smaller brewer, who might have more limitations on the ability to travel longer geographic distances, may attend a festival to achieve the same benefits as brewers gain from collaborations. The festival represents a bridge for individuals to go from home brewing to opening a physical brewery. Festival attendance provides visual cues for brewers to

153

proceed with production, but also offers opportunities to meet larger, more established brewers. From this meeting, small brewers pick up on verbal and visual cues that tell them how to function in the network. The new brewers glean all sorts of information from the festival: who is influential, what bigger brewers create, what symbols do they use, what issues are important, what beer styles are popular, and perhaps most importantly, who can they call on for help. These questions get subtly communicated at festivals; from here small brewers can move on to other breweries as an apprentice, or get help to start their own brewery. Thus, while a brewery may attend numerous festivals and thus have the potential to influence other breweries with symbols, ingredient choice, style, and possibly even social commentary, each brewery may or may not chose to act on that role.

Considering the closeness centrality of the festivals network, the consequence of the neighborhood effect stands out. Much as happened in the collaboration network, a few craft breweries in each region appear as a central figure for that area. Viewed in this light, several breweries emerged as powerful although perhaps only on a neighborhood scale. Again examining this network geographically, breweries such as Funky Buddha stands out as closely connected in the South region, with Orange Blossom brewery, a contract brewer, the most closely connected brewery in the Central region. North region's breweries have relatively few connections in the network but those in the network all participate/connect about equally. There are several breweries in the Central region that share the same space as a closely connected brewery, with many having, as mentioned previously, over 100 possible connections.

154

Festivals act as points of contagion and also as points of reinforcement and encouragement. Homebrewers brew in their kitchen or garage, participate in home brew competitions at a festival, then get the attention of larger brewers and/or the community, and from here “get the brewery bug” i.e. the desire to open their own physical brewery.

Larger brewers often offer assistance, encouragement and guidance, especially those in closer geographic proximity.

The power of transformation

Craft brewers occupy a particular position in a place based system, and part of this includes the power of transformation. This transformation includes the physical transformation of global products, such as hops and barley, into something local through the means of production. This aspect of transformation took the physical global product and symbolically coverts barley and hops into something local. In doing so, that very act of transformation creates place attachment. In talking about neolocalism, if craft breweries succeed because they invoke the new local, this must, inherently, involve transformation. Without change, nothing new will happen. Craft brewers in fact know this and actively work on transformation. As Joey Redner put it:

"Beer can take on a symbolism that goes far beyond the tangible can...It is in these associations, in the emotional connections made by each of us, that true history lives....What a person, place or even a product means to the people of a region...is the true stuff of history. (DeNote, 2014, p.5)" The craft brewery also transforms the landscape, through what this author calls a prism effect. This effect refacets the community’s view of the space in which the brewery occurred, or changes the way a community looks at a space, as if looking at that space through a prism. In many cases, the craft brewery alters little of the physical landscape.

155

Instead, they make change by shifting the way the community views a space, by drawing attention to the past history of the area, and by explicitly celebrating the connections the craft brewers share with each other and with their community. In doing so, craft breweries emerge in position of influence, if not power, in their neighborhood, and their region.

Leadership. Much as Jacobs (1961) described in her work Life and Death of

Great American Cities, great neighborhoods have internal, perhaps informal, leadership that represents the neighborhood to the powers that be. Geography is inherent in the system. Craft breweries that establish these strong ties to their neighborhood, and who successfully refacet a space, actually represent a nascent form of the internal leadership suggested by Jacobs. Regional leaders may have the power not only to represent themselves to policy makers outside the brewing system, but may be able to act as a bridge between the neighborhood and the community at large. This is not to say they want to or will, only that they may well occupy this space in a larger place based system of the city. The production of beer is often zoned an industrial process, as the landscape analysis illustrated, although generally light use industrial. Even so, craft brewers may actually address most of the conditions for generating “exuberant diversity” as Jacobs outlines in her book.

Diversity. Craft breweries may significantly add to the urban landscape by meeting the first condition for diversity, as defined by Jacobs (1961), the need for mixed uses in a given area. As Jacobs (1961) pointed out, one issue particularly in central business districts is the nine to five nature of street traffic. Numerous people flow in at the start of business day, after which streets may be empty. Traffic increases at noon for

156

lunch, then again quiet until five, when most leave for home. After this point, the area is devoid of people. Jacobs makes the point that the dearth of people makes it far easier for problems to occur. No one is there to stop them. Restaurants may do well in these types of areas, but even then, they must generate enough lunchtime business to survive the essentially dead time in between. Other businesses in these types of areas are practically nonexistent.

Yet there is hope to address this issue, through the infusion of new potential uses.

Jacobs (1961) stated that this infusion of new uses in the central business districts (or other areas with time dependent use) must occur in the “off times:” midafternoons, evenings, and weekends. Additionally, this infusion of new uses must not be attractive to those who are in the area for work.

As stated previously, because of the industrial nature of the brewing process, microbreweries are placed in industrial parks. However, microbreweries are often most busy in the off times, that is, from mid-afternoon to late in the night. Brewery production basically occurs at any time a brewer pleases, and their taprooms are open for anyone first to see the means of production and to try any of their products. Evenings and weekends are particularly busy and attractive times for a microbrewery. As the brewery becomes more and more popular, street traffic increases. All it takes is for a brewery to overcome in the initial inertia to begin “activating” the city. A typical progress for a new microbrewery follows this pattern. A brewery may begin in an industrial park, which is often quiet, drab, and perhaps blighted. As the brewery becomes popular, often they will do things to draw people into the establishment, such as having street festivals.

157

Breweries are innovative in this way as they often serve as the harbingers of new ideas. One way that they are successful is through adaptive use. Craft brewers invoke a sense of what this author calls subversive defiance. They will utilize surrounding empty lots or dead streets to expand their brewery without any real cost (except perhaps traffic control at times). Although the brewery occurs in an industrial zone, these zones may be up against residential zones (and these residential zones are often those that are the most run down or lacking in resources). The brewery utilizes these once relatively quiet empty streets to have festivals, or to bring in food trucks. Over time people become invested in the brewery in a way that the area lacked before.

There are numerous examples of the success of microbreweries operating this way. For example, Wynwood Brewing is an example of an established brewery that has significantly increased diversity in its neighborhood. At one point this area met

Jacobs’(1961) description of areas of New York: interesting businesses (in this case including a costumer and various art galleries) that could not survive the lack of diversity in the area. Prior to Wynwood Brewing’s establishment, the area had been a garment factory district. The neighborhood also became known as a Puerto Rican district due to the large number of families that lived in the surrounding residential areas. After the garment factories left the area many of the warehouses were abandoned and were littered with graffiti. Starting in the early 2000’s many artists began to paint notable pieces.

Although the area was known for art, it was essentially an abandoned industrial area.

Then Wynwood Brewery moved into the vicinity. The brewery embraced the diverse nature of the community, especially the artistry of the neighborhood. As Jacobs (1961) states, mixed uses cannot be at cross purposes with the neighborhood. Luis of Wynwood

158

Brewing expressed particular attachment to this area, very consciously stating that “...he would not participate in festivals that were for profit.” In fact, Luis went so far as to create an even more regional brewing collaboration: the Miami Brewers Alliance. The breweries of this alliance seek to promote craft brewing in Miami, but even more, they are committed to promoting the Wynwood district of Miami. A few other Miami breweries were established near Wynwood, and the whole district began flourishing (so much so that they may run the risk of gentrification, although Luis is committed to helping the locals surrounding the brewery). Wynwood has been effective as Jacobs

(1961) defines the term, by increasing both use of the area at different times, and also by increasing the number of people using the same streets and by drawing in and supporting the local Puerto Rican community (and artists). As of now the brewery shares the street with art galleries and other creative industries.

Another example of a district where this process is beginning is the area of St.

Petersburg, in the Tampa Bay area, in particular the area around Rapp Brewing and Pair

O’ Dice. This area is a light industrial park. People generally have no other reason to come here except for work. Although the area is not yet “vibrant” like Wynwood, both breweries have drawn considerable traffic to the area in the hours outside the typical business day, especially evenings and weekends. Much like Wynwood, the breweries draw people in later in the day by virtue of their business, but also by utilizing the empty parking lots for festivals and charity events. For example, Rapp Brewing staged an

“ultimate brewer” competition, which featured a cooperative effort with fourteen of the area breweries, held at night during the typically off peak times.

159

Breweries can fulfill Jacob’s (1961) desire that primary uses spill over and out, to create new areas of mixed uses. As the breweries in St. Petersburg become more popular, they begin to wield more influence on the surrounding area, drawing in new, smaller businesses, such as an ice cream parlor, and a LGBT welcome center, and/or helping to stimulate the growth of other craft breweries. As the owner of 3 Daughter Brewing put it,

“All boats rise with the tide.”

Transforming the landscape through action and celebration. What makes craft breweries so proficient in creating mixed use diversity involves the invocation of what this author called the power of transformation. The power of transformation has two components: both physical and created. The brewery might occur in a historical district, for example, and not much change can occur, or given that many industrial businesses share the space with the brewery, the brewery has limits on the physical changes they can make. As of now, no city has planned a “craft brewery district” (although the City of

Oakland Park is in the planning stages of culinary arts district centered around Funky

Buddha Brewery in Oakland Park, Florida).

As mentioned, craft breweries lend themselves to taking under-utilized spaces and making use of them. They tend to nurture these “gray” areas of industrial parks because it is to their benefit to bring people there. The positive aspect for cities in general is that brewers tend to do this (at least at first with little or no cost to the city itself). Residents of cities then take over these gray areas because they come to recognize it as a happening spot; over time the place itself begins to mean more to the residents and the businesses alike because now people can see value in a previously under-utilized spot. Industrial zones become created “places” simply by virtue of something of interest or importance

160

occurring in that area (for example, the brewery) and/or the brewery reminds the populace of historic importance of a particular space. For example, in St. Petersburg, the presence of the two breweries eventually drew in new breweries (Rapp to Pair O Dice to

3 Daughters to PAW) which in turn activated the main street (and is slowly drawing in more business on the side streets). Residents are visiting local businesses instead of driving across the bay to Tampa to shop, eat, etc. Eventually this leads to a “city pride” event “Localtopia,” featuring, of course, craft breweries as well as local food and art.

This is the crux of neolocalism, not just a celebration of placed based characteristics, but the active creation of new places, and/or the reminder of the value of places. In turn, this fosters even stronger connections between the craft brewery and the community, and the community and the place.

Craft breweries can increase diversity in other ways as well, by revitalizing older buildings in the city as well as situating themselves in areas of higher density (be it industrial, commercial or residential). Often breweries are in historic or older structures, perhaps not of historic “significance” per se, but they tend to use older buildings if possible. Part of the appeal for a craft brewery to situate in a historic building is the very ability to create a place, by establishing a firm connection to the past. For example, Cigar

City is located in downtown Tampa, in an area that was once known for it’s off color businesses, such as strip clubs, as well as an area of economic depression. Most of the buildings in the area, if they survived at all, are historic, built in the early 1900’s as cigar factories or houses for workers in these businesses. Many of these historic buildings were or are in dilapidated condition. As such, this area of Tampa houses much of the heavier industrial processing.

161

Although Cigar City was not the first craft brewery in Tampa, the brewery established itself in one of these run down cigar factories. Cigar City became a success, partially by making the most of the history of the area and the building. In addition, Cigar

City capitalized on the very point Jacobs (1961) makes, “New ideas must use old buildings” (p.188). Typically startup costs for breweries are high. Cigar City was able to cut costs by using an old building in an older area. This in turn led to the successive establishment of other breweries, and the filling in of residents in the area surrounding the brewery as well. Cigar City is in an industrial zone, but again an economically depressed residential area surrounds it on two sides. This area is slowly being revitalized as people are drawn to the area because of what is now being called the craft beer capital of Florida.

Other examples also exist. Saltwater Brewery in Delray Beach is just such an example, as is 3 Daughters and PAW. The building in which Saltwater is situated is an old feed store turned failed antique store. 3 Daughters made their brewery out of an old factory. PAW turned a dilapidated commercial building into a successful brewery. What often benefits these breweries is the ability to build out the structure to suit their purpose.

Because they are already typically in an industrial zone, they may have more freedom in building purpose than a commercial district. But all these breweries capitalize as Cigar

City did, on the history of the place itself. As Jacobs (1961) states, economic value of old buildings is only inheritable, then sustainable over the years. Craft breweries worked on sustaining that value. Craft breweries served the function of reminding people of what the value of the old neighborhoods. Part of their success was the ability to draw on something that makes a place somewhere a person is proud to live in, or visit.

162

Jacobs (1961) also discussed the importance of aged buildings, addressing the idea of diversity in appearance as well as use. Homogenized new buildings add little to the distinct character of a city street and in general do not inspire the generation of new uses. Part of the problem is that they are of typically unvarying in construction and material. One looks much like another. However, craft breweries can overcome this by looking for older buildings. As in the breweries named above, they were able to take advantage of the older buildings for not only for cheaper rent and build out, but also for their unique facade, and subsequently the history of the spot. Craft breweries might not so much make a place as remind people that a place exists, as Jacobs (1961) suggested in her work.

Density and diversity: the hallmarks of craft brewers. Finally, one of Jacobs’

(1961) conditions for diversity is the need for sufficient concentration of people, or in other words high densities of people. This point goes hand in hand with the previous conditions for diversity. Craft breweries are not generators of high density per se. What makes craft breweries valuable on this point is that fact that they are generators of diversity. They are the avant garde, or the advance leaders in generating and accepting new ideas. Craft breweries can help produce higher densities of people because they, quite simply, give people a reason to visit a particular area. One of the hallmarks of craft breweries is their tendency to cluster together. Frequently they are located within blocks of each other. When Jacobs (1961) talks about creating higher density living, she writes that it is necessary to have both work in the immediate area and enough entertainment to keep people there at different times of the day. Craft breweries often meet one or both of these needs. They also helped to generate others, by attracting other businesses or even

163

helping other businesses in an altruistic way. Because in many cases craft breweries are in an industrial area, they are also surrounded by areas of depressed economic conditions such that housing might be fairly inexpensive and, quite likely, already has higher density dwelling around it.

Craft breweries can also help extend and blur boundaries. As mentioned above, craft breweries tend to spill out of their industrial park, commercial building setting. They have a habit of taking over those underutilized areas, which can be called higher density through appropriation. Part of why they are effective is that they try to bring in the neighborhood around them. Over time people move there because the spot becomes dynamic and cooperative, and in many cases fits into the existing fabric of the community.

Funky Buddha is a strong example of this higher density through appropriation.

The brewery has helped to establish a community garden, pushed through empty lots to create de facto streets (which helps to shorten blocks as well, another condition for diversity), as well as take over smaller dead streets for festivals, which are now being filled in with small businesses, restaurants, and other uses. The residential community surrounding it is also filling in with more residents. In conversation with one Funky

Buddha employee, she stated that the neighborhood used to be “dead” but now there are more people moving in to the neighborhood and landowners are putting in more effort to make apartments and house “look nicer” so people will want to move there.

The role for the neolocalist in the city system. Fundamental to the understanding of neolocalism is the process by which neolocalism possibly happens.

164

Early in the research of this project, it became clear that neolocalism is a progression.

Neolocalism might well not be the initial attraction of a particular area. Rather, what might attract the eventual neolocalist consists of potential. Economic potential matters; brewers in this study did not ignore market sensibilities. Rather, the most important element of breweries’ expansion and success consisted of a combination of factors, along the lines of Jacobs (1961) systems of organized complexity.

Schnell and Reese (2006) define this as an active process that must be maintained;

Flack (1997) describes neolocalism as the conscious rejection of globalized industry and the embracement of the local. Yet this research revealed that this is actually more complex than it might appear by these definitions. Craft brewers’ expression of place runs deeper than only innovation of place based names or images suggest, particularly by those who have the most power and influence in the network, to the point of challenging dominant understandings of economics and identity.

Often individuals or small groups have unclear pathways to change, or lack the resources to make changes. Craft brewers can make visible those parts of the system that lack exposure (Figure 34). This reflected the number of out of network collaboration beers made and noted in the collaboration network, but also the frequency of which these breweries reached out into the community. These breweries have an advantage that many smaller groups do not: central organization and central power, which in turn gives them more visibility and the ability to span distances. The Florida Brewers Guild serves in a similar way as a “warrior" but also a "weaver (Stevenson et al., 2007)." Warriors, particularly in food systems work, serve especially in the realm of resistance, by resisting dominant political or economic control in favor of human based approaches. Warriors

165

tend to initiate change and pursue reform, concentrating on protecting those values of members in the social system, as well as bringing in new adherents to the cause. In this case, brewers might push for less governmental regulation of craft products, or the removal of boundaries between entities intent on helping one another. For example, craft brewers might help backyard bee keepers via increased hop production as well as making this cause more visible to the public (Galanty, 2016).

Craft brewers have the power to create shortcuts, or alternatives in a place based system. They straddle the warrior and weaver work described by Stevenson et al., 2007.

The craft brewing community creates alternative pathways by which the individual citizen or small community based group can pass through. Often barriers exist that prevent the small community group from accessing the globalized economic system, or even local policy makers. Craft brewers either help these groups directly or help establish alternative pathways by which information and ideas might pass. Craft brewers also make space in the local economy for other creative and collaborative industries to survive, by first challenging dominant ideas about the ways economic relationships work, and by actively fostering these relationships via collaborations and the maintenance of the network. In doing so, this subversive defiance makes a gap in the circulation of goods or ideas in a particular space, by allowing for a different way of exchanging ideas other than via the traditional neoclassical economic paths. Other entities, like other small community organizations, can capitalize on the space made by this subversive defiance and act as intermediary in the city system (Figure 34). Compare this figure to Figure 1; craft brewers actually help create the circular exchange depicted in Korten’s 1998 model.

166

Figure 34. The role of the craft brewer as a warrior and as a weaver.

Recasting the Neolocal. In order to become a neolocalist, or for a community to embrace the ideals of neolocalism, there is a multi-step process that occurs, which the end result might be neolocalism. This research reveals that a brewery might be successful on the small scale without some of these essential steps, yet to become a brewery with prestige, or what this author defines as a region leader, brewers must evoke the combination of the three steps: one, subversive defiance; two, collaboration; and three, novel defiance and the power of transformation, or the prism effect (Figure 35).

A person or place must desire change in order for change to occur. Frequently, the backgrounds of the craft brewers come almost exclusively from artistic (food), business, or science backgrounds, but with former employment in the corporate sector. Given the opportunity, they seek change in the form of a risk, but a risk that involves camaraderie 167

or control that perhaps their former lives lacked. This control includes economic power, but as the fieldwork revealed the strength of the ties to other brewers, the “brotherhood.”

The banding together of these individuals, at first only for enjoyment perhaps, helps create the first stage of the neolocalist, which this author describes as not only as desire for place attachment, but also a sense of defiance, which gives rise to subversive defiance. Subversive defiance involves not, perhaps, directly challenging any set political or economic differences, yet subtly taking aim that those parts of the economic and political system which leaves people left without roots in the first place, the globalized corporation world. This often takes the form of “Big Beer,” the symbol, in many ways, of the life they consciously rejected. “The reason it’s (the growler law) is going to pass this year is not because we’re (FBG) so much stronger, it’s because we successfully painted them as the bastards they are. Not by ourselves, mind you, but by engaging the craft beer supporters in Florida (Halker, 2015, p. 1).”

As they shift from the nebulous beginning of social capital (i.e. the network begins to form) a group identity, which influences and receives influence from the region in which the individual resides. This identity picks up on signals given in participation in the network, as well as signals from the community and region. From a place of defiance, then, craft brewers seek a place to form an attachment. For most, this is home, either close to places where they grew up, where they have family, or in many cases, because they are seeking "paradise." For example, Luis at Wynwood Brewing chose Wynwood because of strong cultural connections to the area. Wynwood is surrounded by Puerto

Rican diasporas, thus he sought out a way to establish a connection to the brewery as well as create a way to help that larger community.

168

This comes to the point of why some areas of Florida are more successful for the establishment of craft breweries than others: identity. This is regional identity as well as personal identity. As mentioned previously, where breweries establish themselves is of crucial importance. When Shortridge describes neolocalism in his 1996 work, he suggests new place attachment forms in the absence of roots. Flack (1997), among others, takes this idea and applies it to craft breweries. Schnell and Reese explain this as a conscious rejection of the global and the embracing of the "uniquely local." Yet what these works did not directly address is the process by which this occurs. The path to creating a neolocalist depends on the strength of the connection a brewer has with other brewers, with the community, and with the character of the place itself.

Instead, they offer alternatives to a globalized political economy by quiet means.

If people are longing for a sense of place, then so too do people have a desire to challenge the corporate regime. “Brewers are not just opening up businesses to run a profit; they have a different version of the American Dream—one where you can use your brewing as a platform for improving your community (Shilton, 2016, p. 1)." In other words, brewers do not abandon all neoclassical business practices but rather seek alternatives that are masked by corporate organizations.

The most important factor in neolocalism consists, then, of the connections the brewer has to the community place that is created around him/her and, most importantly, the connections the brewers have to each other. As the #IamCraftBeer Movement put it,

“Craft beer is more than just a group of breweries, it’s us – the consumers, restaurants, local farmers, local artisans, print shops, marketing companies, glass companies, and a host of other businesses. In other words, WE are Craft Beer.”

169

Figure 35. Creating the neolocalist: the pathways.

The brewery can be successful if it lacks any of the three steps named above.

However, that particular combination of brewery and place will not crystallize. The creation of social glue, or social capital, is critical to the eventual establishment of a neolocalist place.

170

Chapter Six: Conclusions

Economic embeddedness

Traditional vs. embedded economics. What, then, can the collaboration and festival networks tell us about the economic strength of the craft brewers of Florida?

Consider, for example, the success of microbrewing as the “natural” or predictable outcome of an oligopoly, in which innovation typically comes in waves and uses emotion to differentiate its products from the existing ones in the market. Based on the 2013 from the Craft Brewers' Association data (Watson, 2014), 51.5% of the brewpubs and 76.0% of the microbreweries that have opened in the modern era (since 1980) are still open (so failure rates of 48.5% and 24.0% respectively). These numbers not only hint at the additional complication of running a brewpub, which basically means running two businesses, but may also reflect the lack of connections as well as the more conservative nature of the brewpub, as evidenced by the results shown in this study. The new era of craft brewing may be due to increasing consumer demand and subsequently more friendly regulatory environments, as a conventional neoclassical economic analysis might suggest. However, such a scenario only suggests that the market demands different types of craft beers. The cooperative nature, as well as the leadership roles, that craft brewers play is nothing that a traditional economic analysis might imply.

171

Centrality measures in the social network may not reflect measures of economic success. The collaboration network only reflects one type of embeddedness, the strength of relationships between brewers. However, this study also concludes that craft brewers build these types of relationships in multiple ways. Breweries might have collaborations outside the network (table 10). Brewers might also participate in other types of connections that have nothing to do with a collaboration beer (for example, Marker 48's

Christine's story). The collaboration network reveals the structure of relationships between brewers, thus traditional measures of "success" such as volume production or sales do not correlate with the embeddness of the social relationships models by the network. Collaborations such as creating beers together as well as helping each other with laws, equipment, or training (for example) may not correlate to direct economic benefits such as volume production or sales. Instead, these relationships build up social capital to be called upon in times of stress or need.

Measures of success. Better measures of the embedded nature of the social networks modeled in this work includes social prestige versus economic success.

Internal awards such as the Florida Best Beer championship, as well as the Great

American Beer Festival (among others) indicate social prestige among their peers, much as the social networks modeled in this research. In fact, award winners from the 2014

Florida Best Beer championship follow closely with eigenvector centrality measures of the collaboration network. Florida award winners from the Great American Beer Festival matches closely with the betweenness centrality of the festival network. The Florida Best

Beer awards are given as a reflection of peer judgment of best beers; the Great American

Beer Festival is more of a community based award ceremony. Both these awards and

172

others signal the craft brewing community as well as the wider local and regional communities that these breweries are important. This in turn increases exposure and thus drives up numbers. Social prestige, then, may be a key factor in building and maintaining embedded relationships in the brewer to brewer network modeled in this research.

Not only do craft breweries build these relationships with each other, they do this with the community. The demands for craft beer might certainly reflect the success of foundings; all that is necessary is to create good beer. But the market does not demand that producers of this product cooperate with one another and/or their communities. The social prestige of the collaboration and festival network reflects to the wider community those craft breweries that are considered most successful by their peers. The craft beer community then responds by coming to that brewery. What might be a better measure of economic success is a model of the social network of the craft brewery and connections to other community entities. This work reveals that the cooperative efforts of the craft brewer helps to drive economic success. Further work is needed to explore these relationship between the social network and the economic success of the craft brewers network by quantifying the number of connections of the breweries to the cityscape around them.

Self government. If the craft brewery is successful, like Cigar City and Funky

Buddha, then they start to fulfill a crucial role mentioned by Jacobs: it will help the neighborhood become a self-governed district, both informally, and perhaps formally.

For such districts succeed, they need something or someone strong enough and organized enough to galvanize necessary changes. What craft breweries (especially the established breweries) have begun to do is to become a way for self-government. If the path to

173

change is unclear for most residents of a neighborhood, then they need a strong community identity and voice to create that change. Jacobs mentions several examples of organizations that can do this for a neighborhood, including businesses. Craft breweries can do this neighborhoods, and for cities.

There are many ways that cities might be able to harness the success of the craft brewery movement. One of these (maybe surprisingly) is not to remove the brewery from the industrial zone, but instead guide the brewery to a location where mixed-use might happen, and then let the brewery use its own momentum to help invigorate the city streets. Craft breweries have thus far been so successful at blurring boundaries and drawing neighborhoods in that there is little a city needs to do, except perhaps offer partnerships to the brewery. Most craft brewers interviewed in this research have chose particular locations because they are close to home, or because of an interesting building, or because they want to help their neighborhood. Cities would do very well to encourage this type of syncretism between the brewery and its neighborhood whenever possible.

As a final example, the research considers the city of Oakland Park again, and

Funky Buddha. They wanted a culinary arts district and offered a spot to Funky Buddha for their new brewery. Then, the city essentially left Funky Buddha alone, occasionally offering assistance for partnerships or to help with events. The city even revitalized their city government building, which is down the street from Funky Buddha. What is important is the city did not try to overly-standardize the area, a “brewery district” or other planned space. Although they called it a “culinary arts district,” change happened because they let the brewery express itself naturally. In most cases of successful breweries this is the pattern. Taking a brewery out of the industrial zone might actually

174

hurt cities (although maybe not the brewery). The hallmark of a craft brewer is innovation; they are “the makers of wishes, and the dreamers of dreams (Funky Buddha,

2015).” Active, successful city streets have thoroughfares that involve everyone and feature “bottoms up” levels of organization. Craft breweries are unique enough that they can help cities by generating change.

Ultimately craft breweries help address one of the challenges Jacobs (1961) raises in her book, namely, how do we think about problems with the city? The city is, as she states, a problem of organized complexity. In order to understand what makes a successful city one needs to understand that the city is more than the sum of its parts. As she points out, planners cannot fix one problem in isolation and expect it to resolve all other issues. One of the things that makes craft breweries so valuable is that their growth is inherent in just this, that they are the “catalyst of processes.” A craft brewery can be that “unaverage” clue that gives a hint to other, underlying processes that are connected to city success. Breweries represent overlapping processes happening around them.

Breweries are blurring boundaries between industrial, commercial, and residential zones by making that area more attractive when it otherwise would not be, they are starting to fulfill the position of the “district” Jacobs mentions and as the network analysis illustrates. Problems with zoning arise when these zones “…permit an entire area to be devoted to a single use (Jacobs, 1961, p.229).” What has happened with craft breweries is that they have pushed the boundaries of these zones. Because their business is more of a neighborhood bar than an industrial process, they have drawn people into areas that normally they would not go and at times they normally would not be there. Economically depressed residential areas tend to surround these industrial areas. Craft breweries like

175

Cigar City and Funky Buddha simply push back on these boundaries and take new spots, even if temporarily, for growth. What happens over time is that breweries, if they are successful in overcoming these boundaries, begin to unite the neighborhood.

Deeper connections outside the local

Revitalization and gentrification. The findings of this study do not only apply to the Florida craft brewers. Cities across the United States might benefit from understanding the role that craft brewers can play in the cityscape. Many places have at least noticed correlation between healthy cities and the existence of a craft brewery. For example, in a recent article in The Atlantic (2016), the Fallows, a husband and wife team, explored cities across America and uncovered eleven signs a city will succeed. Among them was the existence of a brewery in the city. Fallows names several other points as well, such as "public-private partnerships are real," "they make themselves open [to immigration]" and "people know the civic story (Fallows, 2016, 3)." The noteworthy feature of the article is the enumeration of many of the correlating factors uncovered in the current research. Moreover, this examination highlights the fact that craft breweries in fact can provide much of the aspects for success named in the article. If the city or town lacks a strong identity, the craft brewery can help recall it. The craft brewer often makes public-private partnerships and this process is transparent to the people in the community.

The beer producing world made note of Fallows' article, and argues the same point.

Alworth (2016) contends that breweries are not just an effect of a city's good health, and also a "cause of the community's vitality” (p. 1). Just as this study noted, Alworth points out that breweries are people magnets that draw communities into industrial areas.

176

Breweries blur lines and draw people into the "bad neighborhood." The theme of meeting place cropped up as well: "Breweries serve an important community building functions."

Breweries may also indicate a changing neighborhood, such as in the Wynwood district in Miami. Vandenengel (2015) discusses the phenomenon of the brewery in the industrial park, by which breweries tend to transform the landscape around them.

Breweries clustered together in industrial zones contribute to a sense of community, like

"the Disneyland of brewery industrial parks located at Industrial Way in Portland, Maine, about a 15-minute drive from the downtown" (p.1). As she writes, "Such is the power of beer that it can draw people together, even if it’s in an unmarked unit of some far-flung industrial park on the edge of town" (p.1). Yet this is a point for future research, uncovering to what extent breweries add to revitalization movements, and to what degree breweries gentrify the landscape. In this study, breweries often do not displace residents at all, rather through the power of transformation they change the way people think about the city landscape around them (particularly in industrial zones). Little work has been done on the long term effect of the craft brewery on the demographics of neighborhoods; given the relatively recent expansion of the industry, this is perhaps not surprising. Yet taken with the results of this study, as well as other works such as Fallows (2016), it would appear that craft breweries may have more of a positive role in the city than as a generator of gentrification.

Big Beer takes notice. In the U.S., the Super Bowl supplied the ideal arena for macro and micro brewing worlds to challenge each other. During the big game,

Budweiser televised the successor to 2015's ad that ridiculed craft brewers. In 2016,

Budweiser challenged the craft brewing industry again, stating that Budweiser was "not

177

small," "not sipped," and "not a hobby." The year prior, Budweiser created a commercial mocking craft beer, stating that they (Budweiser) made real beer and not "pumpkin peach ale." Craft breweries responded by making a wave of pumpkin peach ales following the

Super Bowl advertisement.

In addition, last year, Anheuser-Busch InBev publicized plans to buy the world’s second-largest beer producer, SABMiller, to form “the first truly global beer company”

(Sizemore, 2015). More troubling to the craft beer world, however, has been fact that AB

InBev and MillerCoors buying regional craft brewers, like Cigar City, in an attempt to capture the “pumpkin peach ale” craft beer set (Sizemore, 2015). On the other side,

Scottish craft brewer BrewDog just published an ad aimed at Big Beer’s marketing, with a commercial disdaining Guinness’ focus on aesthetics over quality. "Big beer advertising is b------," BrewDog said. "If you have to spend millions of pounds on ad campaigns to get people to drink your beer, the brewing is probably being neglected."

In an article by Shilton (2016), Bennett Cherry, a professor of entrepreneurism at

California State University San Marcos, attempted to come up with examples of David and Goliath, or industries where a grassroots industry changed the actions of the big corporations, and was unable to come up with any examples, proving the rarity and strength of the craft beer world. One of the issues faced by Big Beer is the economies of scale. Macrobrewers operate on globalized and efficient production and distribution.

However, mass producing beer and selling it nationally—or globally—kills the “buy it local” vibe that craft beer consumers consciously seek out. Remaining local defuses Big

Beer’s advertising and distribution control, as also noted in this research (Sizemore,

2015).

178

Craft breweries: an end note. As growth in the craft beer industry accelerates, the stability of the inter group cooperation might deteriorate. With so many individuals jostling to participate, the craft brewers’ community suffers from the large number of opinions, and from those individuals that may not espouse the ideas discovered in the current research. The strength of the ties expressed here rely on inter and intra group collaboration, and external influences might weaken those bonds. As Benn (2013, p. 1) states,

"The craft beer ideal is one of laidback good times: friendly brewers churning out small batches of enjoyment for chill, happy customers. In this world, everyone plays nicely in the sandbox, sharing belly laughs over beers named with hops puns. Few things provide a snap back to the reality that the craft beer business is just that—a business—than a cease-and- desist letter from a lawyer." The issue of trademark laws has become a serious concern for craft brewers. As more and more craft breweries open, the name game takes on increased importance. Craft brewers struggle to come up with new names not already in use by other craft brewers. In doing so, they may come to grudging or even acrimonious terms with other brewers

(Benn, 2013). While this research focuses on the role of the producers of beer in creating these activated urban landscapes, consumers play a part in maintaining social bonds. As

Bernot (2016) noted, consumers recognize when craft brewers get into these legal skirmishes over names, and often react in anger, as this goes against the typical craft brewer behavior. There are consequences for acting in ways which consumers perceives as more like macrobrewer behavior. In other words, more typical of the large scale globalized economic entities than the local producers. For example, a bitter and well- publicized clash between Magic Hat and West Sixth, a Kentucky brewery, exemplified the internal importance of inter-brewer cooperation and the backlash they feel from

179

consumers. Magic Hat filed a grievance in federal court in Kentucky claiming trademark infringement. West Sixth responded by using social media platforms with pleas to their customers to help fight back against Magic Hat. West Sixth requested consumers to sign a petition asking Magic Hat to drop the lawsuit, as well as encouraging a boycott of

Magic Hat and establishing the website NoMoreMagicHat.com. As a result, fans of West

Sixth negatively altered Magic Hat’s Wikipedia page and publicly chastised Magic Hat on Facebook and Twitter (Crouch, 2013).

The legal clashes highlight the importance of craft brewer collaboration and cooperation. The public quality of these latest trademark quarrels has craft brewers worried about the community spirit they often espouse (Crouch, 2013). Much of the issue deals with the high levels of identity and passion inherent to craft brewing. Bernot (2016, p. 1) shared that “when people are talking about something that is so intrinsic to their identity, like…beer, they can become very defensive.” As this research emphasizes, the role of novel entities, like craft brewers, helps fulfill the need for self-government, local identity, and place creation. However, it requires consistent participation to keep this identity intact. The significance of research such as this one stresses the need to understand the roles that influential actors play in urban systems. While these actors may play a beneficial part in helping their community, that influence might also have a more harmful effect than anticipated. Research like the current project helps communities realize that “in this world, with great power must also come great responsibility (Konda,

2014.).” Craft brewers have an important role to play, and this works guides understanding that craft beer can be “more than just a beer.”

180

Appendices

181

Appendix A: List of Breweries By Region

Region:

North

Lamme: North/North Central, Bible Belt, Dixie, Emerald Coast

1. McGuire's

2. Grayton

3. Oyster City

4. Proof

5. Pensacola Bay Brewery

Alachua

6. Alligator

7. Swamp Head

8. First Magnitude

Duval: First Coast

9. Intuition

10. Aardwolf

11. Engine 15

12. Zeta 182

13. Veterans United

14. Pinglehead

15. Green Room

16 .Ragtime

17. St. Johns

18. Ancient City

19. A1A

Total: 19

Central

Lamme: Dixie, sun Belt, space coast, central

Brevard

1. Tomoka

2. Daytona Beach

3. New Smyrna Beach

4. Ormond Beach

5. Central 28

183

6. Hourglass

7. Playalinda

8. Redlight redlight

9. Florida Beer

10. Bugnutty

11. Intracoastal

12. Orchid Island

13. Crooked Can

14. Orlando Brewing

15. Orange Blossom

16. Infinite

Total: 16

West: (Tampa south to Fort Myers)

Lamme: NOTE: Tampa straddles Central and South, but I am classifying it with South based on known characteristics of the South region.

Sun Belt, Sun Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, Central, South/South West

1. Big Storm 184

2. Escape

3. St. Somewhere

4. Stilt house

5. Dunedin

6. 7th Sun

7. Wild Rover

8. Carrollwood

9. Six 10

10. Angry Chair

11. Coppertail

12. Tampa Bay Brewing Company

13. Southern Wine and Brewing

14. Florida Ave.

15. Cigar City

16. Brew Bus

17. Two Henry's

18. Barley Mow

185

19. Pair O Dice

20. Rapp

21. Mad Beach

22. 3 Daughters

23. PAW

24. Green Bench

25. St. Pete Brewing

26. Motoworks

27. Darwin

28. J Dub's

29. Ft. Myers Brewing

30. Three Palms

Total: 30

CLOSED: Darwin’s on 4th (restaurant end, not brewery), Three Palms, Florida Ave

(retired, taken over by Brew Bus)

South: (Jupiter south to Keys and Collier)

Lamme: Treasure Coast, Gold Coast, South, Glades, Keys

1. Tequesta 186

2. Accomplice

3. Due South

4. Copperpoint

5. Saltwater

6. Barrel of Monks

7. Bangin Banjo

8. 26th Degree

9. Native

10. Biscayne Bay

11. Wynwood

12. J Wakefield

13. Concrete Beach

14. Miami Brewing

15. Islamorada

16. FL Keys

17. Bone Island

18. Waterfront

187

19. Brewzzii

20. Naples Beach Brewing

Total: 20

188

Appendix B: Information for the Diffusion Analysis models

Time Year # of Mixed influence Internal Influence

breweries External influence

0 1996 1 16.84930909 0.379309091 0

1 1997 3 17.54378182 1.133781818 16.25496

3 1998 3 17.54378182 1.133781818 47.33785

4 1999 6 18.57512727 2.255127273 62.19376

5 2000 6 18.57512727 2.255127273 76.61061

6 2001 7 18.91614545 2.626145455 90.60138

7 2002 7 18.91614545 2.626145455 104.1787

8 2003 10 19.93090909 2.995781818 117.3547

9 2004 10 19.93090909 3.364036364 130.1413

10 2005 10 19.93090909 3.730909091 142.55

11 2006 11 20.2664 4.0964 154.5919

12 2007 11 20.2664 4.460509091 166.278

13 2008 11 20.2664 4.823236364 177.6187

14 2009 14 21.26458182 5.184581818 188.6242

15 2010 18 22.57614545 5.544545455 199.3045

16 2011 23 24.18450909 5.903127273 209.6691

17 2012 46 31.13803636 6.260327273 219.7274

18 2013 51 32.87912727 6.616145455 229.4885

19 2014 71 37.86712727 6.970581818 238.961

20 2015 87 41.72050909 7.323636364 248.1536

189

Appendix C: Network analysis tables

Collaboration network: Nodes id label timeset outside degree weighted eccentricity

network degree

collab count

0 26 Degree <[2015.9]> 0 0 0

1 3 Daughters Brewing <[2013.12]> 3 0 0 0

2 7venth Sun brewing <[2012.01]> 18 11 21 4

3 A1A Ale works <[1999.0]> 0 0 0

4 Aardwolf Brewery <[2013.03]> 6 11 5

5 Accomplice <[2015.11]> 0 0 0

7 Alligator Brewing <[2011.4]> 1 3 6

8 Ancient City <[2015.08]> 0 0 0

9 Angry Chair <[2014.11]> 4 3 5 5

10 Bangin' Banjo <[2015.09]> 0 0 0

11 Barley Mow <[2011.11]> 5 7 10 5

12 Barrel of Monks <[2013.11]> 0 0 0

13 Big Storm <[2012.1]> 3 4 7 5

14 Biscayne Bay <[2014.09]> 0 0 0

15 Brew Bus <[2013.1]> 1 1 5

16 Bone Island <[2014.01]> 1 1 2 1

17 Brewzzi <[2001.5]> 1 3 6

18 Bugnutty <[2013.09]> 0 0 0

(Table continues on next page)

190

(Table continues from previous page)

19 Carrollwood <[2015.06]> 3 4 5

20 Central 28 <[2015.07]> 0 0 0

21 Cigar City <[2007.0]> 26 21 41 4

22 Concrete Beach <[2015.05]> 0 0 0

23 Copperpoint <[2015.05]> 1 1 6

24 Coppertail <[2014.09]> 8 6 11 3

25 Crooked Can <[2015.03]> 1 0 0 0

26 Darwin's on 4th <[2012.01]> 15 4 5 5

27 Daytona Beach <[2014.06]> 1 0 0 0

28 Due South <[2012.05]> 8 3 5 5

29 Dunedin <[1996.0]> 10 3 8 5

30 Engine 15 <[2010.07]> 7 4 10 5

31 Escape Brewing <[2014.09]> 1 1 6

32 First Magnitude <[2012.03]> 0 0 0

33 Florida Avenue <[2012.07]> 2 3 5

34 Florida Beer <[1997.0]> 3 1 2 6

35 Florida Keys <[2015.0]> 1 1 2 1

36 Ft. Myers Brewing <[2013.02]> 0 0 0

37 Funky Buddha <[2010.02]> 12 7 11 4

38 Grayton Beer Co <[2011.05]> 2 0 0 0

39 Green Bench <[2013.09]> 15 11 22 4

40 Infinite Brewing <[2015.03]> 4 0 0 0

41 Green Room <[2011.8]> 10 14 21 5

(Table continues on next page)

191

(Table continues from previous page)

42 Intracoastal Brewing <[2013.09]> 1 1 6

43 Intuition Ale Works <[2010.11]> 3 9 17 4

44 J Dub's <[2014.02]> 5 4 5 5

45 J. Wakefield <[2015.01]> 10 2 3 5

46 Mad Beach <[2014.12]> 1 1 6

47 Marker 48 <[2015.11]> 1 0 0 0

48 McGuire's Irish Pub <[2003.04]> 0 0 0

49 Miami Brewing Co <[2015.01]> 4 2 1 0

50 Motorworks <[2014.01]> 6 0 0 0

51 Naples Beach <[2012.11]> 0 0 0

52 Native Brewing <[1999.01]> 2 2 6

53 New Smyrna Beach <[2014.01]> 3 0 0 0

Brewing

54 Orange Blossom <[2003.0]> 1 1 6

55 Orchid Island <[2014.08]> 2 0 0 0

56 Orlando Brewing <[2003.05]> 7 0 0 0

57 Oyster City <[2014.08]> 2 0 0 0

58 Ormond Brewing <[2013.09]> 1 0 0 0

59 Pair O Dice <[2013.1]> 3 1 1 6

60 Pensacola Bay <[2010.11]> 1 0 0 0

61 Pinellas Ale Works <[2016.01]> 0 0 0

62 Pinglehead <[2010.03]> 5 6 7 5

63 Playalinda <[2014.11]> 1 3 3 5

(Table continues on next page)

192

(Table continues from previous page)

64 Proof Brewing <[2014.05]> 3 2 3 5

65 Props Craft <[2012.05]> 0 0 0

66 R Bar <[2013.1]> 0 0 0

67 Ragtime Tavern <[1993.06]> 0 0 0

68 Rapp Brewing <[2012.09]> 2 1 3 6

69 Redlight redlight <[2014.04]> 10 7 10 5

70 Saint Somewhere <[2006.11]> 7 11 20 4

71 Saltwater <[2013.12]> 8 4 5 5

72 Six Ten <[2014.02]> 0 0 0

73 Southern Brewing <[2012.05]> 8 22 4

74 Stilt House <[2014.1]> 0 0 0

75 St. Pete brewing <[2014.04]> 2 3 5 5

76 Swamp Head <[2009.12]> 8 4 10 5

77 Tampa Bay Brewing <[1997.2]> 2 7 15 4

78 Tequesta <[2011.1]> 3 6 4

79 Hourglas Brewing <[2012.08]> 3 0 0 0

80 Waterfront Brewery <[2015.09]> 0 0 0

81 Tomoka Brewery <[2014.01]> 3 4 6 6

82 Three Palms <[2012.07, 2 1 2 6

2015.12]>

83 Two Henrys <[2012.05]> 1 0 0 0

84 Veterans United <[2014.08]> 4 4 5

(Table continues on next page)

193

(Table continues from previous page)

85 Wild Rover <[2013.11]> 2 2 2 5

86 Wynwood <[2013.09]> 7 2 2 5

87 Zeta Brewing <[2015.04]> 1 4 4 5

Collaboration Network continued closnesscentral betweenesscentral clusterin harmonicclosnesscentra type eigencentrali ity ity g lity ty

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.451923 50.60314 0.25 0.535461 1 0.69079

0 0 0 0 2 0

0.350746 1.25 0.73333 0.42695 1 0.253218

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.290123 0 0 0.317376 1 0.030132

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.394958 0.9 0.66666 0.440426 1 0.256015

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.427273 100.3333 0.33333 0.498936 1 0.352325

0 0 0 0 1 0

(Table continues on next page)

194

(Table continues from previous page)

0.34058 91 0.16666 0.394326 1 0.115104

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.30719 0 0 0.33617 3 0.047043

1 0 0 1 1 0.001999

0.281437 0 0 0.306738 2 0.019472

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.38843 46 0.33333 0.438652 1 0.169938

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.5875 542.4926 0.15238 0.700355 4 1

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.281437 0 0 0.306738 1 0.021935

0.431193 59.75769 0.53333 0.489362 1 0.414356

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.385246 0 1 0.433333 1 0.390973

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.38843 51.40186 0 0.438652 1 0.147529

0.382114 46 0.33333 0.43156 1 0.209071

(Table continues on next page)

195

(Table continues from previous page)

2.475733 0.666667 0.410993 1 0.196762 0.350746

0.255435 0 0 0.281915 1 0.016133

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.317568 46 0 0.355319 1 0.054229

0.301282 0 0 0.330496 1 0.043968

1 0 0 1 1 0.001999

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.439252 153.9756 0.142857 0.510638 1 0.378477

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.447619 78.23333 0.388889 0.526596 1 0.733192

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.47 185.1067 0.24359 0.578723 1 0.721338

0.255435 0 0 0.281915 1 0.016133

0.443396 106.4147 0.388889 0.530142 1 0.414403

0.415929 74.43333 0.166667 0.47234 1 0.231706

0.376 0 1 0.417376 1 0.204508

0.242268 0 0 0.264894 2 0.008368

0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 2 0

(Table continues on next page)

196

(Table continues from previous page)

0 0 0 0 1 0.001999

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.208889 0 0 0.235461 3 0.014645

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.278107 0 0 0.303191 1 0.026062

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.301282 0 0 0.330496 1 0.043968

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.350746 6.083333 0.666667 0.42695 2 0.240915

0.376 0 1 0.417376 1 0.247175

0.311258 0 1 0.352837 1 0.084637

0 0 0 0 2 0

0.255435 0 0 0.280851 1 0.015983

0.382114 1.933333 0.5 0.438652 1 0.528832

0.439252 34.60287 0.333333 0.510638 1 0.765233

0.26257 46.75 0 0.309929 1 0.032139

(Table continues on next page)

197

(Table continues from previous page)

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.451923 144.694 0.392857 0.52305 1 0.41563

0 0 0 0 2 0

0.34058 47 0 0.389007 1 0.120423

0.405172 51.40186 0.333333 0.463475 1 0.237596

0.47 93.9899 0.52381 0.530142 2 0.460077

0.343066 64.41154 0 0.390071 1 0.104669

0 0 0 0 2 0

0.338129 9 0.333333 0.403901 1 0.164274

0.295597 0 0 0.321986 1 0.029426

0 0 0 0 1 0

0.345588 0 1 0.405674 1 0.206727

0.376 0 1 0.417376 1 0.212655

0.315436 24.75513 0 0.355674 1 0.054365

0.345588 0 1 0.405674 1 0.206727

Collaboration network: edges

Sourc Targe Type id label timeset weigh date of e t t collab

2 29 Undirecte 12 <[2014.02] 5 29-02-2014

d >

(Table continues on next page)

198

(Table continues from previous page)

59 11 Undirecte 9 Murderous <[2016.01] 1 30-01-2016

d >

64 43 Undirecte 11 Vandura <[2015.06] 2 17-06-2015

d >

41 70 Undirecte 72 <[2013.04] 2 4/1/2013

d >

21 77 Undirecte 8 Old Ale aged on oak <[2016.01] 2 30-01-2016

d >

11 39 Undirecte 71 <[2014.1]> 1 2014-17-10

11 34 Undirecte 13 Selkie; C. Dub <[2013.05] 2 15-05-2013

d >

73 77 Undirecte 14 Breeze under the kilt <[2015.07] 4 4/7/2015

d >

73 24 Undirecte 15 <[2015.07] 3 4/7/2015

d >

73 9 Undirecte 16 <[2015.07] 2 4/7/2015

d >

73 21 Undirecte 17 Shake Weights, BABF <[2015.07] 4 4/7/2015

d 2x >

41 81 Undirecte 18 <[2013.08] 2 2/8/2013

d >

(Table continues on next page)

199

(Table continues from previous page)

30 81 Undirecte 19 Doolots Saison <[2013.08] 2 2/8/2013

d >

69 70 Undirecte 20 <[2013.08] 1 2/8/2013

d >

37 43 Undirecte 21 trappist speedball <[2015.1]> 1 ########

76 21 Undirecte 22 Slow as Molasses <[2012.4, 4 23-10-2015

d 2015.1]>

4 43 Undirecte 23 Twisted Branch IPA <[2015.04] 3 23-04-2015

d >

21 24 Undirecte 24 Sabotage <[2015.01] 1 18-01-2015

d >

21 2 Undirecte 25 Deconstructed <[2013.03] 4 6/3/2013

d Subtropical >

21 29 Undirecte 26 Deconstructed <[2013.03] 2 6/3/2013

d Subtropical >

9 21 Undirecte 45 coconut banana cream <[2013.08] 1 14-08-2013

d pie beer >

26 39 Undirecte 28 stone crab <[2014.1]> 2 27-10-2014

21 44 Undirecte 29 Hoppy black lager <[2014.03] 1 25-03-2014

d >

(Table continues on next page)

200

(Table continues from previous page)

21 28 Undirecte 30 Desert Inn Rye <[2013.02] 1 27-02-2013

d >

21 43 Undirecte 31 Imperial Oatmeal and <[2014.05] 2 6/5/2014

d Rye black >

77 11 Undirecte 32 Big IPA <[2014.06] 2 6/6/2014

d >

77 24 Undirecte 33 Saison <[2014.06] 2 6/6/2014

d >

77 39 Undirecte 34 Beligan Dubbel <[2014.06] 2 6/6/2014

d >

77 13 Undirecte 35 Smoked Scotch Ale; <[2014.06] 2 6/6/2014

d Breeze under the kilt >

70 39 Undirecte 49 saint de banc vert <[2013.09] 3 5/9/2013

d >

21 39 Undirecte 48 sgt. pfeffer <[2013.09] 2 5/9/2013

d >

2 39 Undirecte 47 blood red summer <[2013.09] 3 5/9/2013

d >

73 11 Undirecte 39 <[2014.06] 2 6/6/2014

d >

73 13 Undirecte 40 Breeze under the kilt <[2014.06, 3 6/6/2014

d 2015.07]>

(Table continues on next page)

201

(Table continues from previous page)

9 2 Undirected 46 what's in my mouth <[2014.09]> 2 ########

73 39 Undirected 42 <[2014.06]> 2 6/6/2014

24 39 Undirected 43 special IPA <[2016.01]> 3 30-01-2016

21 26 Undirected 44 <[2015.05]> 1 18-05-2015

21 70 Undirected 50 Beelzebob <[2013.09]> 3 21-09-2013

7 76 Undirected 51 Hop school, It takes a <[2014.04]> 3 16-04-2014

village

11 21 Undirected 52 Gourd Save the Queen <[2013.01]> 1 ########

26 70 Undirected 53 <[2014.08]> 1 ########

85 21 Undirected 127 <[2014.06]> 1

71 86 Undirected 55 Pop's Salty sea Cow <[2015.12]> 1 ########

81 76 Undirected 56 Agrio <[2013.06]> 1 18-06-2013

33 73 Undirected 57 <[2014.06]> 2 20-06-2014

44 82 Undirected 58 <[2013.12]> 2 18-12-2013

37 78 Undirected 59 Apple brandy barrel <[2012.05, 3 22=01-2013

barleywine 2013.01]>

45 21 Undirected 60 <[2013.02]> 2 25-02-2013

21 63 Undirected 61 <[2014.11]> 1 14-11-2014

21 37 Undirected 62 oyster stout <[2013.11]> 3 ########

2 41 Undirected 63 swell imperial <[2013.05]> 1

2 24 Undirected 64 my name is mynameis <[2015.03]> 1 ########

2 37 Undirected 65 <[2015.02]> 1 27-02-2015

2 69 Undirected 66 ugli fruit <[2015.02]> 1 2/2/2015

(Table continues on next page)

202

(Table continues from previous page)

4 41 Undirected 67 sea wolf <[2013.02]> 2 7/2/2013

4 62 Undirected 68 raining hOPs <[2013.02]> 2 4/2/2013

4 30 Undirected 69 15 wolves <[2013.05]> 2 7/5/2013

13 42 Undirected 73 Brittle N Bits <[2014.11]> 1

15 37 Undirected 74 Brown Rye farmhouse <[2014.1]> 1

16 35 Undirected 75 Vanilla brown <[2015.08]> 2

19 21 Undirected 76 <[2015.07]> 2

19 11 Undirected 77 C6B4 <[2015.1]> 1

19 23 Undirected 78 <[2015.08]> 1

24 78 Undirected 79 <[2014.05]> 1

71 78 Undirected 80 <[2014.12]> 2

30 43 Undirected 81 Partners in Crime <[2014.03]> 4

28 81 Undirected 82 Ginger snap <[2013.12]> 1

28 17 Undirected 83 India Black Lager <[2012.12]> 3

37 86 Undirected 84 Right on 95 <[2014.08]> 1

30 41 Undirected 85 <[2015.11]> 2

41 43 Undirected 86 <[2015.11]> 2

21 41 Undirected 87 White Devil <[2013.01]> 2

41 62 Undirected 103 <[2015.09]> 1

29 54 Undirected 89 <[2013.02]> 1

31 13 Undirected 90 <[2015.01]> 1

(Table continues on next page)

203

(Table continues from previous page)

33 46 Undirected 91 <[2014.08]> 1

37 70 Undirected 93 <[2013.01]> 1

39 75 Undirected 94 <[2013.01]> 1

41 77 Undirected 95 <[2015.11]> 1

41 76 Undirected 96 <[2013.01]> 2

41 44 Undirected 97 <[2013.12]> 1

43 62 Undirected 98 <[2015.09]> 1

43 84 Undirected 99 <[2015.09]> 1

43 87 Undirected 100 <[2015.09]> 1

4 84 Undirected 101 <[2015.09]> 1

4 87 Undirected 102 <[2015.09]> 1

41 84 Undirected 104 <[2015.09]> 1

41 87 Undirected 105 <[2015.09]> 1

62 84 Undirected 106 <[2015.09]> 1

62 87 Undirected 107 <[2015.09]> 1

44 75 Undirected 108 <[2014.06]> 1

45 2 Undirected 109 <[2015.02]> 1

49 49 Undirected 110 <[2013.05]> 1

52 71 Undirected 111 <[2015.06]> 1

63 69 Undirected 112 <[2015.02]> 1

62 64 Undirected 113 <[2014.03]> 1

68 75 Undirected 114 <[2015.06]> 3

(Table continues on next page)

204

(Table continues from previous page)

69 21 Undirected 115 <[2015.06]> 1

69 70 Undirected 116 Singe Puant; Singe de <[2014.09]> 4

Mar

69 63 Undirected 117 <[2015.02]> 1

69 2 Undirected 118 <[2015.02]> 1

70 39 Undirected 119 <[2013.07]> 2

70 26 Undirected 120 <[2014.08]> 1

41 70 Undirected 121 <[2012.09]> 1

70 85 Undirected 122 <[2014.12]> 1

2 39 Undirected 123 <[2014.05]> 1

52 71 Undirected 124 <[2015.07]> 1

Festival networks: Nodes i la tim deg weig eccent closnessc harmonicclosn betweeness clust eigence d be eset ree hted ricity entrality esscentrality centrality ering ntrality l degr ee 1 26 10 10 2 0.542373 0.578125 0 1 0.05445 7 Degree 5 1 3 73 73 2 0.735632 0.820313 41.48946 0.64 0.53260 8 Daughte 2683 6 rs 1 7th Sun 45 45 2 0.653061 0.734375 1.269266 0.93 0.35905 9 Brewing 3333 1 2 A1A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alework s 2 Aardwol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 f Brewing (Table continues on next page)

205

(Table continues from previous page)

2 Accomplice 14 14 3 0.542373 0.59375 0 1 0.055957 2 23 Alligator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brewing 24 Ancient City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brewing 25 Angry Chair 73 73 2 0.71111 0.79687 4.34062 0.85490 0.56152 1 5 8 8 26 Bangin Banjo 13 13 3 0.54237 0.59375 0 1 0.04659 3 8 27 Barley Mow 78 78 2 0.70329 0.78906 3.23340 0.87837 0.61464 7 3 1 8 8 28 Barrel of Monks 37 37 2 0.65306 0.73437 22.3014 0.60919 0.16930 1 5 5 5 5 30 Big Storm 12 12 2 0.87671 0.92968 95.6557 0.54814 0.81526 Brewing 1 1 2 8 4 8 7 31 Biscayne Bay 25 25 2 0.58715 0.64843 1.72091 0.83625 0.12436 6 8 4 7 2 32 Bone Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Brew 81 81 2 0.82051 0.89062 75.3026 0.60979 0.53350 Bus 3 5 6 2 34 Brew Hub 14 14 2 0.56140 0.60937 0 1 0.07305 4 5 8 35 Bugnutt 14 14 3 0.55172 0.60416 0.06666 0.98901 0.08775 y 4 7 7 1 5 36 Carrollwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Central 28 14 14 3 0.55172 0.60416 0.06666 0.98901 0.08775 4 7 7 1 5 38 Cigar 14 14 2 0.88888 0.9375 196.989 0.51103 1 City 9 9 9 1 9 39 Concrete Beach 33 33 2 0.59813 0.66406 3.78461 0.77619 0.15513 Brewery 1 3 6 7 40 Copperpoint 23 23 2 0.59813 0.66406 8.07263 0.66190 0.09963 1 3 9 5 41 Coppertail 10 10 2 0.71910 0.80468 9.77892 0.82996 0.78533 1 1 1 8 3 5 42 Crooked Can 72 72 2 0.74418 0.82812 15.4013 0.74912 0.52030 6 5 3 9 9 43 Darwin 14 14 2 0.85333 0.91406 113.799 0.57547 0.94852 Brewing 0 0 3 3 6 2 6 44 Daytona Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Due South 28 28 2 0.58715 0.64843 2.68786 0.80117 0.14738 6 8 6 7 46 Dunedi 57 57 2 0.70329 0.78906 2.38117 0.87837 0.42469 n 7 3 6 8 2 (Table continues on next page)

206

(Table continues from previous page)

47 Engine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 48 Escape 21 21 2 0.59813 0.66406 0 1 0.16537 Brewing 1 3 3 49 First Magnitude 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Florida Avenue 63 63 2 0.79012 0.86718 35.8515 0.59204 0.41232 3 8 5 4 3 51 Florida Beer 65 65 2 0.75294 0.83593 37.076 0.63122 0.39490 Company 1 8 9 8 52 Florida Keys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 Fort Myers 4 4 2 0.51612 0.53125 0 1 0.03125 Brewing 9 3 54 Funky Buddha 10 10 2 0.86486 0.92187 174.533 0.48637 0.6771 8 8 5 5 1 3 55 Grayton Beer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 56 Green Bench 94 94 2 0.71910 0.80468 8.79248 0.82996 0.73181 1 8 6 57 Green Room 10 10 2 0.54237 0.57812 0 1 0.05445 3 5 5 58 Infinite Ale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Works 59 Intracoastal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brewing 60 Intutition Ale 29 29 2 0.64 0.71875 0 1 0.22791 Works 5 61 Islamorada 37 37 2 0.60377 0.67187 3.32345 0.80086 0.21335 4 5 7 6 5 62 J Dub's 75 75 2 0.74418 0.82812 14.4850 0.73983 0.55219 6 5 9 7 5 63 J Wakefield 18 18 2 0.56637 0.61718 0.62435 0.89523 0.06540 2 8 8 8 8 64 Mad Beach 69 69 2 0.70329 0.78906 2.89831 0.87837 0.52532 7 3 8 2 65 Marker 48 28 28 2 0.64 0.71875 0.24178 0.97883 0.20245 6 6 8 66 McGuire's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 Miami Brewing 54 54 2 0.62745 0.70312 10.4584 0.72615 0.26163 1 5 5 4 9 68 Motorworks 86 86 2 0.81012 0.88281 45.1106 0.62159 0.58705 Brewing 7 3 6 9 7 69 Naples Beach 4 4 2 0.51612 0.53125 0 1 0.03125 Brewing 9 3 70 Native Brewing 14 14 2 0.56140 0.60937 0 1 0.07305 4 5 8 (Table continues on next page)

207

(Table continues from previous page)

71 New Smyrna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach 72 Orange Blossom 58 58 2 0.76190 0.84375 40.1283 0.59725 0.37464 Brewing 5 6 2 5 73 Orchid Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brewing 74 Orlando 38 38 2 0.64646 0.72656 13.6347 0.65270 0.21866 Brewing 5 3 6 9 8 75 Ormond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brewing 76 Oyster City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 Pair o Dice 77 77 2 0.75294 0.83593 17.4459 0.73643 0.56182 1 8 5 4 2 78 Pensacola Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brewing 79 Pinellas Ale 71 71 2 0.70329 0.78906 2.89831 0.87837 0.54603 Works 7 3 8 2 80 Pinglehead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 Playalinda 20 20 2 0.58181 0.64062 0.56462 0.90196 0.14708 8 5 3 1 2 82 Proof Brewing 39 39 2 0.64646 0.72656 0.31573 0.96798 0.30926 5 3 4 4 83 Ragtime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brewing 84 Rapp Brewing 80 80 2 0.71111 0.79687 5.02910 0.85490 0.61380 1 5 2 8 6 85 Redlight redlight 31 31 2 0.60377 0.67187 2.42466 0.83982 0.23577 4 5 5 7 9 86 Saint 89 89 2 0.75294 0.83593 40.0553 0.70653 0.65569 Somewhere 1 8 5 4 8 87 Saltwate 50 50 2 0.62135 0.69531 10.1550 0.72 0.25921 r 9 3 9 3 88 Six Ten 53 53 2 0.70329 0.78906 2.38117 0.87837 0.37925 7 3 6 8 89 Southern 28 28 2 0.64 0.71875 0.24178 0.97883 0.20245 Brewing 6 6 8 90 Stilt House 48 48 2 0.64 0.71875 0.20592 0.98412 0.38323 9 7 8 91 St. Pete Brewing 39 39 2 0.62745 0.70312 0 1 0.31562 1 5 92 Swamp Head 38 38 2 0.67368 0.75781 8.19160 0.79545 0.26516 4 3 3 5 8 93 Tampa Bay 49 49 2 0.70329 0.78906 6.68189 0.78979 0.35823 Brewing 7 3 9 Company (Table continues on next page)

208

(Table continues from previous page)

94 Tequesta 27 27 2 0.60377 0.67187 3.59844 0.77922 0.11796 4 5 7 1 5 95 The Hourglass 13 13 3 0.54700 0.59635 0 1 0.08564 Brewery 9 4 8 96 The Waterfront 10 10 2 0.53781 0.57031 0 1 0.07679 Brewery 5 3 2 97 Tomoka 70 70 2 0.72727 0.8125 29.0486 0.67179 0.51356 Brewery 3 9 5 8 98 Two Henry's 27 27 2 0.62745 0.70312 0 1 0.20873 1 5 3 99 Veterans United 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Wild Rover 56 56 2 0.69565 0.78125 1.74113 0.89682 0.42239 0 2 7 5 2 10 Wynwood 49 49 2 0.62745 0.70312 10.9107 0.70461 0.24351 1 1 5 5 5 6 10 Zeta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 Brewzzi Boca 10 10 2 0.54237 0.57812 0 1 0.05445 3 Raton 3 5 5 10 R Bar 57 57 2 0.70329 0.78906 2.58499 0.87837 0.42136 4 7 3 8 8 2 10 Three Palms 27 27 2 0.63366 0.71093 0.02439 0.99715 0.20012 5 3 8 1 4

Festival networks: Edges

Source Target Type id label weight

56 41 Undirected 0 1

56 86 Undirected 1 1

56 62 Undirected 2 1

56 90 Undirected 3 1

56 84 Undirected 4 1

56 18 Undirected 5 1

56 91 Undirected 6 1

(Table continues on next page)

209

(Table continues from previous page)

56 30 Undirected 7 1

56 43 Undirected 8 1

56 64 Undirected 9 1

56 27 Undirected 10 1

56 79 Undirected 11 1

56 38 Undirected 12 1

41 86 Undirected 13 1

41 62 Undirected 14 1

41 90 Undirected 15 1

41 84 Undirected 16 1

41 18 Undirected 17 1

41 91 Undirected 18 1

41 30 Undirected 19 1

41 43 Undirected 20 1

41 64 Undirected 21 1

41 27 Undirected 22 1

41 79 Undirected 23 1

41 38 Undirected 24 1

86 62 Undirected 25 1

86 90 Undirected 26 1

86 90 Undirected 27 1

86 84 Undirected 28 1

86 18 Undirected 29 1

(Table continues on next page)

210

(Table continues from previous page)

86 30 Undirected 30 1

86 18 Undirected 31 1

86 91 Undirected 32 1

86 84 Undirected 33 1

86 90 Undirected 34 1

86 30 Undirected 35 1

86 43 Undirected 36 1

86 64 Undirected 37 1

86 27 Undirected 38 1

86 79 Undirected 39 1

86 38 Undirected 40 1

62 90 Undirected 41 1

62 84 Undirected 42 1

62 18 Undirected 43 1

62 91 Undirected 44 1

62 30 Undirected 45 1

62 43 Undirected 46 1

62 64 Undirected 47 1

62 27 Undirected 48 1

62 79 Undirected 49 1

62 38 Undirected 50 1

90 84 Undirected 51 1

90 18 Undirected 52 1

(Table continues on next page)

211

(Table continues from previous page)

90 91 Undirected 53 1

90 30 Undirected 54 1

90 43 Undirected 55 1

90 64 Undirected 56 1

90 27 Undirected 57 1

90 79 Undirected 58 1

90 38 Undirected 59 1

84 18 Undirected 60 1

84 18 Undirected 61 1

84 91 Undirected 62 1

84 30 Undirected 63 1

84 43 Undirected 64 1

84 64 Undirected 65 1

84 27 Undirected 66 1

84 79 Undirected 67 1

84 38 Undirected 68 1

18 91 Undirected 69 1

18 30 Undirected 70 1

18 43 Undirected 71 1

18 64 Undirected 72 1

18 27 Undirected 73 1

18 79 Undirected 74 1

18 38 Undirected 75 1

(Table continues on next page)

212

(Table continues from previous page)

91 30 Undirected 76 1

91 43 Undirected 77 1

91 64 Undirected 78 1

91 27 Undirected 79 1

91 79 Undirected 80 1

91 38 Undirected 81 1

30 43 Undirected 82 1

30 64 Undirected 83 1

30 27 Undirected 84 1

30 79 Undirected 85 1

30 38 Undirected 86 1

43 64 Undirected 87 1

43 27 Undirected 88 1

43 27 Undirected 89 1

43 79 Undirected 90 1

43 38 Undirected 91 1

64 27 Undirected 92 1

64 79 Undirected 93 1

64 38 Undirected 94 1

27 79 Undirected 95 1

27 38 Undirected 96 1

79 38 Undirected 97 1

86 54 Undirected 98 1

(Table continues on next page)

213

(Table continues from previous page)

86 72 Undirected 99 1

86 38 Undirected 100 1

86 57 Undirected 101 1

86 92 Undirected 102 1

86 103 Undirected 103 1

86 40 Undirected 104 1

86 28 Undirected 105 1

86 97 Undirected 106 1

86 17 Undirected 107 1

54 72 Undirected 108 1

54 38 Undirected 109 1

54 57 Undirected 110 1

54 92 Undirected 111 1

54 103 Undirected 112 1

54 40 Undirected 113 1

54 28 Undirected 114 1

54 97 Undirected 115 1

54 17 Undirected 116 1

72 38 Undirected 117 1

72 57 Undirected 118 1

72 92 Undirected 119 1

72 103 Undirected 120 1

72 40 Undirected 121 1

(Table continues on next page)

214

(Table continues from previous page)

72 28 Undirected 122 1

72 97 Undirected 123 1

72 17 Undirected 124 1

38 57 Undirected 125 1

38 92 Undirected 126 1

38 103 Undirected 127 1

38 40 Undirected 128 1

38 28 Undirected 129 1

38 97 Undirected 130 1

38 17 Undirected 131 1

57 92 Undirected 132 1

57 103 Undirected 133 1

57 40 Undirected 134 1

57 28 Undirected 135 1

57 97 Undirected 136 1

57 17 Undirected 137 1

92 103 Undirected 138 1

92 40 Undirected 139 1

92 28 Undirected 140 1

92 97 Undirected 141 1

92 17 Undirected 142 1

103 40 Undirected 143 1

103 28 Undirected 144 1

(Table continues on next page)

215

(Table continues from previous page)

103 97 Undirected 145 1

103 17 Undirected 146 1

40 28 Undirected 147 1

40 97 Undirected 148 1

40 17 Undirected 149 1

28 97 Undirected 150 1

28 17 Undirected 151 1

97 17 Undirected 152 1

101 87 Undirected 153 1

101 51 Undirected 154 1

101 67 Undirected 155 1

101 54 Undirected 156 1

101 67 Undirected 157 1

101 45 Undirected 158 1

101 38 Undirected 159 1

87 51 Undirected 160 1

87 67 Undirected 161 1

87 54 Undirected 162 1

87 45 Undirected 163 1

87 38 Undirected 164 1

51 67 Undirected 165 1

51 54 Undirected 166 1

51 45 Undirected 167 1

(Table continues on next page)

216

(Table continues from previous page)

51 38 Undirected 168 1

67 54 Undirected 169 1

67 45 Undirected 170 1

67 38 Undirected 171 1

54 45 Undirected 172 1

54 38 Undirected 173 1

45 38 Undirected 174 1

72 51 Undirected 175 1

72 39 Undirected 176 1

72 67 Undirected 177 1

72 31 Undirected 178 1

72 63 Undirected 179 1

51 39 Undirected 180 1

51 67 Undirected 181 1

51 31 Undirected 182 1

51 63 Undirected 183 1

39 67 Undirected 184 1

39 31 Undirected 185 1

39 63 Undirected 186 1

67 31 Undirected 187 1

67 63 Undirected 188 1

31 63 Undirected 189 1

18 38 Undirected 190 1

(Table continues on next page)

217

(Table continues from previous page)

18 53 Undirected 191 1

18 54 Undirected 192 1

18 69 Undirected 193 1

38 53 Undirected 194 1

38 54 Undirected 195 1

38 69 Undirected 196 1

53 54 Undirected 197 1

53 69 Undirected 198 1

54 69 Undirected 199 1

38 19 Undirected 200 1

38 25 Undirected 201 1

38 64 Undirected 202 1

38 41 Undirected 203 1

38 54 Undirected 204 1

38 43 Undirected 205 1

38 27 Undirected 206 1

38 84 Undirected 207 1

38 82 Undirected 208 1

38 77 Undirected 209 1

38 62 Undirected 210 1

38 93 Undirected 211 1

38 68 Undirected 212 1

38 56 Undirected 213 1

(Table continues on next page)

218

(Table continues from previous page)

38 92 Undirected 214 1

38 33 Undirected 215 1

38 46 Undirected 216 1

38 30 Undirected 217 1

38 60 Undirected 218 1

38 86 Undirected 219 1

38 100 Undirected 220 1

38 79 Undirected 221 1

38 42 Undirected 222 1

38 104 Undirected 223 1

38 51 Undirected 224 1

38 97 Undirected 225 1

38 72 Undirected 226 1

19 25 Undirected 227 1

19 64 Undirected 228 1

19 41 Undirected 229 1

19 54 Undirected 230 1

19 43 Undirected 231 1

19 27 Undirected 232 1

19 84 Undirected 233 1

19 82 Undirected 234 1

19 77 Undirected 235 1

19 62 Undirected 236 1

(Table continues on next page)

219

(Table continues from previous page)

19 93 Undirected 237 1

19 68 Undirected 238 1

19 56 Undirected 239 1

19 92 Undirected 240 1

19 88 Undirected 241 1

19 33 Undirected 242 1

19 46 Undirected 243 1

19 30 Undirected 244 1

19 60 Undirected 245 1

19 86 Undirected 246 1

19 100 Undirected 247 1

19 79 Undirected 248 1

19 42 Undirected 249 1

19 104 Undirected 250 1

19 51 Undirected 251 1

19 97 Undirected 252 1

19 72 Undirected 253 1

25 64 Undirected 254 1

25 41 Undirected 255 1

25 54 Undirected 256 1

25 43 Undirected 257 1

25 27 Undirected 258 1

25 84 Undirected 259 1

(Table continues on next page)

220

(Table continues from previous page)

25 82 Undirected 260 1

25 77 Undirected 261 1

25 62 Undirected 262 1

25 93 Undirected 263 1

25 68 Undirected 264 1

25 56 Undirected 265 1

25 92 Undirected 266 1

25 33 Undirected 267 1

25 46 Undirected 268 1

25 30 Undirected 269 1

25 60 Undirected 270 1

25 86 Undirected 271 1

25 100 Undirected 272 1

25 79 Undirected 273 1

25 79 Undirected 274 1

25 42 Undirected 275 1

25 104 Undirected 276 1

25 51 Undirected 277 1

25 97 Undirected 278 1

25 72 Undirected 279 1

64 41 Undirected 280 1

64 54 Undirected 281 1

64 43 Undirected 282 1

(Table continues on next page)

221

(Table continues from previous page)

64 27 Undirected 283 1

64 84 Undirected 284 1

64 82 Undirected 285 1

64 77 Undirected 286 1

64 62 Undirected 287 1

64 93 Undirected 288 1

64 68 Undirected 289 1

64 56 Undirected 290 1

64 92 Undirected 291 1

64 88 Undirected 292 1

64 33 Undirected 293 1

64 46 Undirected 294 1

64 30 Undirected 295 1

64 60 Undirected 296 1

64 86 Undirected 297 1

64 100 Undirected 298 1

64 79 Undirected 299 1

64 42 Undirected 300 1

64 104 Undirected 301 1

64 51 Undirected 302 1

64 97 Undirected 303 1

64 72 Undirected 304 1

41 54 Undirected 305 1

(Table continues on next page)

222

(Table continues from previous page)

41 43 Undirected 306 1

41 27 Undirected 307 1

41 84 Undirected 308 1

41 82 Undirected 309 1

41 77 Undirected 310 1

41 62 Undirected 311 1

41 93 Undirected 312 1

41 68 Undirected 313 1

41 56 Undirected 314 1

41 92 Undirected 315 1

41 88 Undirected 316 1

41 33 Undirected 317 1

41 46 Undirected 318 1

41 30 Undirected 319 1

41 60 Undirected 320 1

41 86 Undirected 321 1

41 100 Undirected 322 1

41 79 Undirected 323 1

41 42 Undirected 324 1

41 104 Undirected 325 1

41 51 Undirected 326 1

41 97 Undirected 327 1

41 72 Undirected 328 1

(Table continues on next page)

223

(Table continues from previous page)

54 43 Undirected 329 1

54 27 Undirected 330 1

54 84 Undirected 331 1

54 82 Undirected 332 1

54 77 Undirected 333 1

54 62 Undirected 334 1

54 93 Undirected 335 1

54 68 Undirected 336 1

54 56 Undirected 337 1

54 92 Undirected 338 1

54 88 Undirected 339 1

54 33 Undirected 340 1

54 46 Undirected 341 1

54 30 Undirected 342 1

54 60 Undirected 343 1

54 86 Undirected 344 1

54 100 Undirected 345 1

54 79 Undirected 346 1

54 42 Undirected 347 1

54 104 Undirected 348 1

54 51 Undirected 349 1

54 97 Undirected 350 1

54 72 Undirected 351 1

(Table continues on next page)

224

(Table continues from previous page)

43 27 Undirected 352 1

43 84 Undirected 353 1

43 82 Undirected 354 1

43 77 Undirected 355 1

43 62 Undirected 356 1

43 93 Undirected 357 1

43 68 Undirected 358 1

43 56 Undirected 359 1

43 92 Undirected 360 1

43 88 Undirected 361 1

43 33 Undirected 362 1

43 46 Undirected 363 1

43 30 Undirected 364 1

43 60 Undirected 365 1

43 86 Undirected 366 1

43 100 Undirected 367 1

43 79 Undirected 368 1

43 42 Undirected 369 1

43 104 Undirected 370 1

43 51 Undirected 371 1

43 97 Undirected 372 1

43 72 Undirected 373 1

27 84 Undirected 374 1

(Table continues on next page)

225

(Table continues from previous page)

27 82 Undirected 375 1

27 77 Undirected 376 1

27 62 Undirected 377 1

27 93 Undirected 378 1

27 68 Undirected 379 1

27 56 Undirected 380 1

27 92 Undirected 381 1

27 88 Undirected 382 1

27 33 Undirected 383 1

27 46 Undirected 384 1

27 30 Undirected 385 1

27 60 Undirected 386 1

27 86 Undirected 387 1

27 100 Undirected 388 1

27 79 Undirected 389 1

27 42 Undirected 390 1

27 104 Undirected 391 1

27 51 Undirected 392 1

27 97 Undirected 393 1

27 72 Undirected 394 1

84 82 Undirected 395 1

84 77 Undirected 396 1

84 62 Undirected 397 1

(Table continues on next page)

226

(Table continues from previous page)

84 93 Undirected 398 1

84 68 Undirected 399 1

84 56 Undirected 400 1

84 92 Undirected 401 1

84 88 Undirected 402 1

84 33 Undirected 403 1

84 46 Undirected 404 1

84 30 Undirected 405 1

84 60 Undirected 406 1

84 86 Undirected 407 1

84 100 Undirected 408 1

84 79 Undirected 409 1

84 42 Undirected 410 1

84 104 Undirected 411 1

84 51 Undirected 412 1

84 97 Undirected 413 1

84 72 Undirected 414 1

82 77 Undirected 415 1

82 62 Undirected 416 1

82 93 Undirected 417 1

82 68 Undirected 418 1

82 56 Undirected 419 1

82 92 Undirected 420 1

(Table continues on next page)

227

(Table continues from previous page)

82 88 Undirected 421 1

82 33 Undirected 422 1

82 46 Undirected 423 1

82 30 Undirected 424 1

82 60 Undirected 425 1

82 86 Undirected 426 1

82 33 Undirected 427 1

82 100 Undirected 428 1

82 79 Undirected 429 1

82 42 Undirected 430 1

82 104 Undirected 431 1

82 51 Undirected 432 1

82 97 Undirected 433 1

82 72 Undirected 434 1

77 62 Undirected 435 1

77 93 Undirected 436 1

77 68 Undirected 437 1

77 56 Undirected 438 1

77 92 Undirected 439 1

77 88 Undirected 440 1

77 33 Undirected 441 1

77 46 Undirected 442 1

77 30 Undirected 443 1

(Table continues on next page)

228

(Table continues from previous page)

77 60 Undirected 444 1

77 86 Undirected 445 1

77 100 Undirected 446 1

77 79 Undirected 447 1

77 42 Undirected 448 1

77 104 Undirected 449 1

77 51 Undirected 450 1

77 72 Undirected 451 1

62 93 Undirected 452 1

62 68 Undirected 453 1

62 56 Undirected 454 1

62 92 Undirected 455 1

62 88 Undirected 456 1

62 33 Undirected 457 1

62 46 Undirected 458 1

62 30 Undirected 459 1

62 60 Undirected 460 1

62 86 Undirected 461 1

62 100 Undirected 462 1

62 79 Undirected 463 1

62 42 Undirected 464 1

62 104 Undirected 465 1

62 51 Undirected 466 1

(Table continues on next page)

229

(Table continues from previous page)

62 97 Undirected 467 1

62 72 Undirected 468 1

93 68 Undirected 469 1

93 56 Undirected 470 1

93 92 Undirected 471 1

93 88 Undirected 472 1

93 33 Undirected 473 1

93 46 Undirected 474 1

93 30 Undirected 475 1

93 60 Undirected 476 1

93 86 Undirected 477 1

93 100 Undirected 478 1

93 79 Undirected 479 1

93 42 Undirected 480 1

93 104 Undirected 481 1

93 51 Undirected 482 1

93 97 Undirected 483 1

93 72 Undirected 484 1

68 56 Undirected 485 1

68 92 Undirected 486 1

68 88 Undirected 487 1

68 33 Undirected 488 1

68 46 Undirected 489 1

(Table continues on next page)

230

(Table continues from previous page)

68 30 Undirected 490 1

68 60 Undirected 491 1

68 86 Undirected 492 1

68 100 Undirected 493 1

68 79 Undirected 494 1

68 42 Undirected 495 1

68 104 Undirected 496 1

68 51 Undirected 497 1

68 97 Undirected 498 1

68 72 Undirected 499 1

56 92 Undirected 500 1

56 88 Undirected 501 1

56 33 Undirected 502 1

56 46 Undirected 503 1

56 30 Undirected 504 1

56 60 Undirected 505 1

56 86 Undirected 506 1

56 100 Undirected 507 1

56 79 Undirected 508 1

56 42 Undirected 509 1

56 104 Undirected 510 1

56 51 Undirected 511 1

56 97 Undirected 512 1

(Table continues on next page)

231

(Table continues from previous page)

56 72 Undirected 513 1

92 88 Undirected 514 1

92 33 Undirected 515 1

92 46 Undirected 516 1

92 30 Undirected 517 1

92 60 Undirected 518 1

92 86 Undirected 519 1

92 100 Undirected 520 1

92 79 Undirected 521 1

92 42 Undirected 522 1

92 104 Undirected 523 1

92 51 Undirected 524 1

92 97 Undirected 525 1

92 72 Undirected 526 1

88 33 Undirected 527 1

88 46 Undirected 528 1

88 60 Undirected 529 1

88 86 Undirected 530 1

88 100 Undirected 531 1

88 79 Undirected 532 1

88 42 Undirected 533 1

88 104 Undirected 534 1

88 51 Undirected 535 1

(Table continues on next page)

232

(Table continues from previous page)

88 97 Undirected 536 1

88 72 Undirected 537 1

33 46 Undirected 538 1

33 30 Undirected 539 1

33 60 Undirected 540 1

33 86 Undirected 541 1

33 38 Undirected 542 1

33 100 Undirected 543 1

33 79 Undirected 544 1

33 42 Undirected 545 1

33 104 Undirected 546 1

33 51 Undirected 547 1

33 97 Undirected 548 1

33 72 Undirected 549 1

38 33 Undirected 550 1

38 46 Undirected 551 1

38 30 Undirected 552 1

38 60 Undirected 553 1

38 86 Undirected 554 1

38 100 Undirected 555 1

38 79 Undirected 556 1

38 42 Undirected 557 1

38 104 Undirected 558 1

(Table continues on next page)

233

(Table continues from previous page)

38 51 Undirected 559 1

38 97 Undirected 560 1

38 72 Undirected 561 1

46 30 Undirected 562 1

46 60 Undirected 563 1

46 86 Undirected 564 1

46 100 Undirected 565 1

46 79 Undirected 566 1

46 42 Undirected 567 1

46 104 Undirected 568 1

46 51 Undirected 569 1

46 97 Undirected 570 1

46 72 Undirected 571 1

30 60 Undirected 572 1

30 86 Undirected 573 1

30 100 Undirected 574 1

30 79 Undirected 575 1

30 42 Undirected 576 1

30 104 Undirected 577 1

30 51 Undirected 578 1

30 97 Undirected 579 1

30 72 Undirected 580 1

60 86 Undirected 581 1

(Table continues on next page)

234

(Table continues from previous page)

60 100 Undirected 582 1

60 79 Undirected 583 1

60 42 Undirected 584 1

60 104 Undirected 585 1

60 51 Undirected 586 1

60 97 Undirected 587 1

60 72 Undirected 588 1

86 100 Undirected 589 1

86 79 Undirected 590 1

86 42 Undirected 591 1

86 104 Undirected 592 1

86 51 Undirected 593 1

86 97 Undirected 594 1

86 72 Undirected 595 1

100 79 Undirected 596 1

100 42 Undirected 597 1

100 104 Undirected 598 1

100 51 Undirected 599 1

100 97 Undirected 600 1

100 72 Undirected 601 1

79 42 Undirected 602 1

79 104 Undirected 603 1

79 51 Undirected 604 1

(Table continues on next page)

235

(Table continues from previous page)

79 97 Undirected 605 1

79 72 Undirected 606 1

42 104 Undirected 607 1

42 51 Undirected 608 1

42 51 Undirected 609 1

42 97 Undirected 610 1

42 72 Undirected 611 1

104 51 Undirected 612 1

104 97 Undirected 613 1

104 72 Undirected 614 1

104 51 Undirected 615 1

51 97 Undirected 616 1

51 72 Undirected 617 1

97 72 Undirected 618 1

30 33 Undirected 619 1

30 39 Undirected 620 1

30 43 Undirected 621 1

30 51 Undirected 622 1

30 61 Undirected 623 1

30 67 Undirected 624 1

30 74 Undirected 625 1

30 87 Undirected 626 1

33 39 Undirected 627 1

(Table continues on next page)

236

(Table continues from previous page)

33 43 Undirected 628 1

33 18 Undirected 629 1

30 18 Undirected 630 1

33 51 Undirected 631 1

33 61 Undirected 632 1

33 67 Undirected 633 1

33 74 Undirected 634 1

33 87 Undirected 635 1

39 43 Undirected 636 1

39 18 Undirected 637 1

39 51 Undirected 638 1

39 61 Undirected 639 1

39 67 Undirected 640 1

39 74 Undirected 641 1

39 87 Undirected 642 1

43 18 Undirected 643 1

43 51 Undirected 644 1

43 61 Undirected 645 1

43 67 Undirected 646 1

43 74 Undirected 647 1

43 87 Undirected 648 1

18 51 Undirected 649 1

18 51 Undirected 650 1

(Table continues on next page)

237

(Table continues from previous page)

18 61 Undirected 651 1

18 67 Undirected 652 1

18 74 Undirected 653 1

18 87 Undirected 654 1

51 61 Undirected 655 1

51 67 Undirected 656 1

51 74 Undirected 657 1

51 87 Undirected 658 1

61 67 Undirected 659 1

61 74 Undirected 660 1

61 87 Undirected 661 1

67 74 Undirected 662 1

67 87 Undirected 663 1

74 87 Undirected 664 1

56 54 Undirected 665 1

56 41 Undirected 666 1

56 38 Undirected 667 1

56 43 Undirected 668 1

56 84 Undirected 669 1

56 19 Undirected 670 1

56 25 Undirected 671 1

56 82 Undirected 672 1

56 97 Undirected 673 1

(Table continues on next page)

238

(Table continues from previous page)

56 85 Undirected 674 1

54 41 Undirected 675 1

54 38 Undirected 676 1

54 43 Undirected 677 1

54 84 Undirected 678 1

54 19 Undirected 679 1

54 25 Undirected 680 1

54 82 Undirected 681 1

54 97 Undirected 682 1

54 85 Undirected 683 1

41 38 Undirected 684 1

41 43 Undirected 685 1

41 43 Undirected 686 1

41 84 Undirected 687 1

41 19 Undirected 688 1

41 25 Undirected 689 1

41 82 Undirected 690 1

41 97 Undirected 691 1

41 85 Undirected 692 1

38 43 Undirected 693 1

38 84 Undirected 694 1

38 19 Undirected 695 1

38 82 Undirected 696 1

(Table continues on next page)

239

(Table continues from previous page)

38 97 Undirected 697 1

38 85 Undirected 698 1

43 84 Undirected 699 1

43 19 Undirected 700 1

43 25 Undirected 701 1

43 82 Undirected 702 1

43 97 Undirected 703 1

43 85 Undirected 704 1

84 19 Undirected 705 1

84 25 Undirected 706 1

84 82 Undirected 707 1

84 97 Undirected 708 1

84 85 Undirected 709 1

19 25 Undirected 710 1

19 82 Undirected 711 1

19 97 Undirected 712 1

19 85 Undirected 713 1

25 82 Undirected 714 1

25 97 Undirected 715 1

25 85 Undirected 716 1

82 97 Undirected 717 1

82 85 Undirected 718 1

97 85 Undirected 719 1

(Table continues on next page)

240

(Table continues from previous page)

101 39 Undirected 721 1

101 67 Undirected 722 1

101 62 Undirected 723 1

101 31 Undirected 724 1

101 43 Undirected 725 1

101 61 Undirected 726 1

39 67 Undirected 727 1

39 62 Undirected 728 1

39 31 Undirected 729 1

39 43 Undirected 730 1

39 61 Undirected 731 1

67 62 Undirected 732 1

67 31 Undirected 733 1

67 43 Undirected 734 1

67 61 Undirected 735 1

62 31 Undirected 736 1

62 43 Undirected 737 1

62 61 Undirected 738 1

31 43 Undirected 739 1

31 61 Undirected 740 1

43 61 Undirected 741 1

19 38 Undirected 742 1

19 41 Undirected 743 1

(Table continues on next page)

241

(Table continues from previous page)

19 54 Undirected 744 1

19 56 Undirected 745 1

19 81 Undirected 746 1

19 85 Undirected 747 1

19 86 Undirected 748 1

38 41 Undirected 749 1

38 54 Undirected 750 1

38 56 Undirected 751 1

38 81 Undirected 752 1

38 85 Undirected 753 1

38 86 Undirected 754 1

41 54 Undirected 755 1

41 56 Undirected 756 1

41 81 Undirected 757 1

41 85 Undirected 758 1

41 86 Undirected 759 1

54 56 Undirected 760 1

54 81 Undirected 761 1

54 85 Undirected 762 1

54 86 Undirected 763 1

56 81 Undirected 764 1

56 85 Undirected 765 1

56 86 Undirected 766 1

(Table continues on next page)

242

(Table continues from previous page)

81 85 Undirected 767 1

81 86 Undirected 768 1

85 86 Undirected 769 1

101 43 Undirected 770 1

101 50 Undirected 771 1

101 61 Undirected 772 1

101 94 Undirected 773 1

101 28 Undirected 774 1

101 70 Undirected 775 1

101 74 Undirected 776 1

101 74 Undirected 777 1

101 87 Undirected 778 1

101 68 Undirected 779 1

101 67 Undirected 780 1

101 31 Undirected 781 1

101 30 Undirected 782 1

101 34 Undirected 783 1

43 50 Undirected 784 1

43 61 Undirected 785 1

43 94 Undirected 786 1

43 28 Undirected 787 1

43 70 Undirected 788 1

43 74 Undirected 789 1

(Table continues on next page)

243

(Table continues from previous page)

43 87 Undirected 790 1

43 68 Undirected 791 1

43 67 Undirected 792 1

43 31 Undirected 793 1

43 30 Undirected 794 1

43 54 Undirected 795 1

43 34 Undirected 796 1

50 61 Undirected 797 1

50 94 Undirected 798 1

50 28 Undirected 799 1

50 70 Undirected 800 1

50 74 Undirected 801 1

50 87 Undirected 802 1

50 68 Undirected 803 1

50 67 Undirected 804 1

50 31 Undirected 805 1

50 30 Undirected 806 1

50 54 Undirected 807 1

50 34 Undirected 808 1

61 94 Undirected 809 1

61 28 Undirected 810 1

61 70 Undirected 811 1

61 74 Undirected 812 1

(Table continues on next page)

244

(Table continues from previous page)

61 87 Undirected 813 1

61 68 Undirected 814 1

61 67 Undirected 815 1

61 31 Undirected 816 1

61 30 Undirected 817 1

61 34 Undirected 818 1

94 28 Undirected 819 1

94 70 Undirected 820 1

94 74 Undirected 821 1

94 87 Undirected 822 1

94 68 Undirected 823 1

94 67 Undirected 824 1

94 31 Undirected 825 1

94 30 Undirected 826 1

94 54 Undirected 827 1

94 34 Undirected 828 1

28 70 Undirected 829 1

28 74 Undirected 830 1

28 87 Undirected 831 1

28 68 Undirected 832 1

28 67 Undirected 833 1

28 31 Undirected 834 1

28 30 Undirected 835 1

(Table continues on next page)

245

(Table continues from previous page)

28 54 Undirected 836 1

28 34 Undirected 837 1

70 74 Undirected 838 1

70 87 Undirected 839 1

70 68 Undirected 840 1

70 67 Undirected 841 1

70 31 Undirected 842 1

70 30 Undirected 843 1

70 54 Undirected 844 1

70 34 Undirected 845 1

74 87 Undirected 846 1

74 68 Undirected 847 1

74 67 Undirected 848 1

74 31 Undirected 849 1

74 30 Undirected 850 1

74 54 Undirected 851 1

74 34 Undirected 852 1

87 68 Undirected 853 1

87 67 Undirected 854 1

87 31 Undirected 855 1

87 30 Undirected 856 1

87 54 Undirected 857 1

87 34 Undirected 858 1

(Table continues on next page)

246

(Table continues from previous page)

68 67 Undirected 859 1

68 31 Undirected 860 1

68 30 Undirected 861 1

68 54 Undirected 862 1

68 34 Undirected 863 1

67 31 Undirected 864 1

67 30 Undirected 865 1

67 54 Undirected 866 1

67 34 Undirected 867 1

31 30 Undirected 868 1

31 54 Undirected 869 1

31 34 Undirected 870 1

30 54 Undirected 871 1

30 34 Undirected 872 1

54 34 Undirected 873 1

38 77 Undirected 874 1

38 54 Undirected 875 1

38 25 Undirected 876 1

38 97 Undirected 877 1

38 27 Undirected 878 1

38 43 Undirected 879 1

38 56 Undirected 880 1

38 41 Undirected 881 1

(Table continues on next page)

247

(Table continues from previous page)

77 54 Undirected 882 1

77 25 Undirected 883 1

77 97 Undirected 884 1

77 27 Undirected 885 1

77 43 Undirected 886 1

77 56 Undirected 887 1

77 41 Undirected 888 1

54 25 Undirected 889 1

54 97 Undirected 890 1

54 27 Undirected 891 1

54 43 Undirected 892 1

54 56 Undirected 893 1

54 41 Undirected 894 1

25 97 Undirected 895 1

25 27 Undirected 896 1

25 43 Undirected 897 1

25 56 Undirected 898 1

25 41 Undirected 899 1

97 27 Undirected 900 1

97 43 Undirected 901 1

97 56 Undirected 902 1

97 41 Undirected 903 1

27 43 Undirected 904 1

(Table continues on next page)

248

(Table continues from previous page)

27 56 Undirected 905 1

27 41 Undirected 906 1

43 56 Undirected 907 1

43 41 Undirected 908 1

56 41 Undirected 909 1

93 30 Undirected 910 1

93 68 Undirected 911 1

93 41 Undirected 912 1

93 18 Undirected 913 1

93 90 Undirected 914 1

93 50 Undirected 915 1

93 43 Undirected 916 1

30 68 Undirected 917 1

30 18 Undirected 918 1

30 90 Undirected 919 1

30 50 Undirected 920 1

30 43 Undirected 921 1

68 41 Undirected 922 1

68 18 Undirected 923 1

68 90 Undirected 924 1

68 50 Undirected 925 1

68 43 Undirected 926 1

41 18 Undirected 927 1

(Table continues on next page)

249

(Table continues from previous page)

41 90 Undirected 928 1

41 50 Undirected 929 1

41 43 Undirected 930 1

18 90 Undirected 931 1

18 50 Undirected 932 1

18 43 Undirected 933 1

90 50 Undirected 934 1

50 43 Undirected 935 1

30 35 Undirected 936 1

30 37 Undirected 937 1

30 38 Undirected 938 1

30 42 Undirected 939 1

30 43 Undirected 940 1

30 50 Undirected 941 1

30 72 Undirected 942 1

30 74 Undirected 943 1

30 77 Undirected 944 1

30 81 Undirected 945 1

30 85 Undirected 946 1

30 93 Undirected 947 1

30 95 Undirected 948 1

30 97 Undirected 949 1

35 37 Undirected 950 1

(Table continues on next page)

250

(Table continues from previous page)

35 38 Undirected 951 1

35 42 Undirected 952 1

35 43 Undirected 953 1

35 50 Undirected 954 1

35 72 Undirected 955 1

35 74 Undirected 956 1

35 77 Undirected 957 1

35 81 Undirected 958 1

35 85 Undirected 959 1

35 93 Undirected 960 1

35 95 Undirected 961 1

35 97 Undirected 962 1

37 38 Undirected 963 1

37 42 Undirected 964 1

37 43 Undirected 965 1

37 50 Undirected 966 1

37 72 Undirected 967 1

37 74 Undirected 968 1

37 77 Undirected 969 1

37 81 Undirected 970 1

37 85 Undirected 971 1

37 93 Undirected 972 1

37 95 Undirected 973 1

(Table continues on next page)

251

(Table continues from previous page)

37 97 Undirected 974 1

38 42 Undirected 975 1

38 43 Undirected 976 1

38 50 Undirected 977 1

38 72 Undirected 978 1

38 74 Undirected 979 1

38 77 Undirected 980 1

38 81 Undirected 981 1

38 85 Undirected 982 1

38 93 Undirected 983 1

38 95 Undirected 984 1

38 97 Undirected 985 1

42 43 Undirected 986 1

42 50 Undirected 987 1

42 72 Undirected 988 1

42 74 Undirected 989 1

42 77 Undirected 990 1

42 81 Undirected 991 1

42 85 Undirected 992 1

42 93 Undirected 993 1

42 95 Undirected 994 1

42 97 Undirected 995 1

42 43 Undirected 996 1

(Table continues on next page)

252

(Table continues from previous page)

43 50 Undirected 997 1

43 72 Undirected 998 1

43 74 Undirected 999 1

43 77 Undirected 1000 1

43 81 Undirected 1001 1

43 85 Undirected 1002 1

43 93 Undirected 1003 1

43 95 Undirected 1004 1

43 97 Undirected 1005 1

50 72 Undirected 1006 1

50 74 Undirected 1007 1

50 77 Undirected 1008 1

50 81 Undirected 1009 1

50 85 Undirected 1010 1

50 93 Undirected 1011 1

50 95 Undirected 1012 1

50 97 Undirected 1013 1

72 74 Undirected 1014 1

72 77 Undirected 1015 1

72 81 Undirected 1016 1

72 85 Undirected 1017 1

72 93 Undirected 1018 1

72 95 Undirected 1019 1

(Table continues on next page)

253

(Table continues from previous page)

72 97 Undirected 1020 1

74 77 Undirected 1021 1

74 81 Undirected 1022 1

74 85 Undirected 1023 1

74 93 Undirected 1024 1

74 95 Undirected 1025 1

74 97 Undirected 1026 1

77 81 Undirected 1027 1

77 85 Undirected 1028 1

77 93 Undirected 1029 1

77 95 Undirected 1030 1

77 97 Undirected 1031 1

81 85 Undirected 1032 1

81 93 Undirected 1033 1

81 97 Undirected 1034 1

85 93 Undirected 1035 1

85 95 Undirected 1036 1

85 97 Undirected 1037 1

93 95 Undirected 1038 1

93 97 Undirected 1039 1

95 97 Undirected 1040 1

22 26 Undirected 1041 1

22 28 Undirected 1042 1

(Table continues on next page)

254

(Table continues from previous page)

22 33 Undirected 1043 1

22 39 Undirected 1044 1

22 40 Undirected 1045 1

22 45 Undirected 1046 1

22 51 Undirected 1047 1

22 54 Undirected 1048 1

22 54 Undirected 1049 1

22 63 Undirected 1050 1

22 67 Undirected 1051 1

22 87 Undirected 1052 1

22 94 Undirected 1053 1

22 101 Undirected 1054 1

26 28 Undirected 1055 1

26 33 Undirected 1056 1

26 39 Undirected 1057 1

26 40 Undirected 1058 1

26 45 Undirected 1059 1

26 51 Undirected 1060 1

26 54 Undirected 1061 1

26 63 Undirected 1062 1

26 67 Undirected 1063 1

26 87 Undirected 1064 1

26 94 Undirected 1065 1

(Table continues on next page)

255

(Table continues from previous page)

26 101 Undirected 1066 1

28 33 Undirected 1067 1

28 39 Undirected 1068 1

28 40 Undirected 1069 1

28 45 Undirected 1070 1

28 51 Undirected 1071 1

28 54 Undirected 1072 1

28 63 Undirected 1073 1

28 67 Undirected 1074 1

28 87 Undirected 1075 1

28 94 Undirected 1076 1

28 101 Undirected 1077 1

33 39 Undirected 1078 1

33 40 Undirected 1079 1

33 45 Undirected 1080 1

33 51 Undirected 1081 1

33 54 Undirected 1082 1

33 63 Undirected 1083 1

33 67 Undirected 1084 1

33 87 Undirected 1085 1

33 94 Undirected 1086 1

33 101 Undirected 1087 1

39 40 Undirected 1088 1

(Table continues on next page)

256

(Table continues from previous page)

39 45 Undirected 1089 1

39 51 Undirected 1090 1

39 54 Undirected 1091 1

39 63 Undirected 1092 1

39 67 Undirected 1093 1

39 87 Undirected 1094 1

39 94 Undirected 1095 1

39 101 Undirected 1096 1

40 45 Undirected 1097 1

40 51 Undirected 1098 1

40 54 Undirected 1099 1

40 63 Undirected 1100 1

40 67 Undirected 1101 1

40 87 Undirected 1102 1

40 94 Undirected 1103 1

40 101 Undirected 1104 1

45 51 Undirected 1105 1

45 54 Undirected 1106 1

45 63 Undirected 1107 1

45 67 Undirected 1108 1

45 87 Undirected 1109 1

45 94 Undirected 1110 1

45 101 Undirected 1111 1

(Table continues on next page)

257

(Table continues from previous page)

51 54 Undirected 1112 1

51 63 Undirected 1113 1

51 67 Undirected 1114 1

51 87 Undirected 1115 1

51 94 Undirected 1116 1

51 101 Undirected 1117 1

54 63 Undirected 1118 1

54 67 Undirected 1119 1

54 87 Undirected 1120 1

54 94 Undirected 1121 1

54 101 Undirected 1122 1

63 67 Undirected 1123 1

63 87 Undirected 1124 1

63 94 Undirected 1125 1

63 101 Undirected 1126 1

67 87 Undirected 1127 1

67 94 Undirected 1128 1

67 101 Undirected 1129 1

87 94 Undirected 1130 1

87 101 Undirected 1131 1

94 101 Undirected 1132 1

96 38 Undirected 1133 1

96 87 Undirected 1134 1

(Table continues on next page)

258

(Table continues from previous page)

96 45 Undirected 1135 1

96 38 Undirected 1136 1

96 54 Undirected 1137 1

96 30 Undirected 1138 1

96 61 Undirected 1139 1

96 68 Undirected 1140 1

96 18 Undirected 1141 1

96 101 Undirected 1142 1

87 38 Undirected 1143 1

87 45 Undirected 1144 1

87 54 Undirected 1145 1

87 101 Undirected 1146 1

87 61 Undirected 1147 1

87 68 Undirected 1148 1

87 18 Undirected 1149 1

38 45 Undirected 1150 1

38 54 Undirected 1151 1

38 101 Undirected 1152 1

38 30 Undirected 1153 1

38 61 Undirected 1154 1

38 68 Undirected 1155 1

38 18 Undirected 1156 1

45 54 Undirected 1157 1

(Table continues on next page)

259

(Table continues from previous page)

45 101 Undirected 1158 1

45 30 Undirected 1159 1

45 61 Undirected 1160 1

45 68 Undirected 1161 1

45 18 Undirected 1162 1

54 101 Undirected 1163 1

54 30 Undirected 1164 1

54 61 Undirected 1165 1

54 68 Undirected 1166 1

54 18 Undirected 1167 1

101 30 Undirected 1168 1

101 61 Undirected 1169 1

101 68 Undirected 1170 1

101 18 Undirected 1171 1

30 61 Undirected 1172 1

30 68 Undirected 1173 1

30 18 Undirected 1174 1

61 68 Undirected 1175 1

61 18 Undirected 1176 1

68 18 Undirected 1177 1

18 43 Undirected 1330 1

18 56 Undirected 1333 1

18 65 Undirected 1336 1

(Table continues on next page)

260

(Table continues from previous page)

18 79 Undirected 1339 1

18 88 Undirected 1342 1

18 86 Undirected 1345 1

18 48 Undirected 1350 1

25 30 Undirected 1353 1

25 41 Undirected 1356 1

25 50 Undirected 1359 1

25 64 Undirected 1362 1

25 77 Undirected 1365 1

25 84 Undirected 1368 1

25 91 Undirected 1371 1

25 105 Undirected 1374 1

25 48 Undirected 1377 1

27 33 Undirected 1380 1

27 43 Undirected 1383 1

27 56 Undirected 1386 1

27 65 Undirected 1389 1

27 79 Undirected 1392 1

27 88 Undirected 1395 1

27 86 Undirected 1398 1

27 98 Undirected 1401 1

27 42 Undirected 1404 1

30 41 Undirected 1407 1

(Table continues on next page)

261

(Table continues from previous page)

30 50 Undirected 1410 1

30 64 Undirected 1413 1

30 77 Undirected 1416 1

30 84 Undirected 1419 1

30 91 Undirected 1422 1

30 105 Undirected 1425 1

30 48 Undirected 1428 1

33 38 Undirected 1430 1

33 43 Undirected 1432 1

33 50 Undirected 1434 1

33 62 Undirected 1436 1

33 65 Undirected 1438 1

33 77 Undirected 1440 1

33 79 Undirected 1441 1

33 84 Undirected 1443 1

33 89 Undirected 1445 1

33 86 Undirected 1447 1

33 105 Undirected 1449 1

33 100 Undirected 1451 1

33 48 Undirected 1453 1

18 41 Undirected 1329 1

38 43 Undirected 1455 1

38 50 Undirected 1457 1

(Table continues on next page)

262

(Table continues from previous page)

38 62 Undirected 1459 1

18 27 Undirected 1325 1

18 33 Undirected 1327 1

18 50 Undirected 1332 1

18 64 Undirected 1335 1

18 77 Undirected 1338 1

18 84 Undirected 1341 1

18 91 Undirected 1344 1

18 105 Undirected 1347 1

18 100 Undirected 1349 1

25 27 Undirected 1352 1

25 38 Undirected 1355 1

25 46 Undirected 1358 1

25 62 Undirected 1361 1

25 68 Undirected 1364 1

25 104 Undirected 1367 1

25 89 Undirected 1370 1

25 90 Undirected 1373 1

25 100 Undirected 1376 1

27 30 Undirected 1379 1

27 41 Undirected 1382 1

27 50 Undirected 1385 1

27 64 Undirected 1388 1

(Table continues on next page)

263

(Table continues from previous page)

27 77 Undirected 1391 1

27 84 Undirected 1394 1

27 91 Undirected 1397 1

27 105 Undirected 1400 1

27 48 Undirected 1403 1

30 38 Undirected 1406 1

30 46 Undirected 1409 1

30 62 Undirected 1412 1

30 68 Undirected 1415 1

30 104 Undirected 1418 1

30 89 Undirected 1421 1

30 90 Undirected 1424 1

30 100 Undirected 1427 1

30 42 Undirected 1429 1

33 41 Undirected 1431 1

33 46 Undirected 1433 1

33 56 Undirected 1435 1

33 64 Undirected 1437 1

33 68 Undirected 1439 1

33 104 Undirected 1442 1

33 88 Undirected 1444 1

33 91 Undirected 1446 1

33 90 Undirected 1448 1

(Table continues on next page)

264

(Table continues from previous page)

33 98 Undirected 1450 1

33 42 Undirected 1452 1

18 38 Undirected 1328 1

38 41 Undirected 1454 1

38 46 Undirected 1456 1

38 56 Undirected 1458 1

18 25 Undirected 1324 1

18 30 Undirected 1326 1

18 46 Undirected 1331 1

18 62 Undirected 1334 1

18 68 Undirected 1337 1

18 104 Undirected 1340 1

18 89 Undirected 1343 1

18 90 Undirected 1346 1

18 98 Undirected 1348 1

18 42 Undirected 1351 1

25 33 Undirected 1354 1

25 43 Undirected 1357 1

25 56 Undirected 1360 1

25 65 Undirected 1363 1

25 79 Undirected 1366 1

25 88 Undirected 1369 1

25 86 Undirected 1372 1

(Table continues on next page)

265

(Table continues from previous page)

25 98 Undirected 1375 1

25 42 Undirected 1378 1

27 38 Undirected 1381 1

27 46 Undirected 1384 1

27 62 Undirected 1387 1

27 68 Undirected 1390 1

27 104 Undirected 1393 1

27 89 Undirected 1396 1

27 90 Undirected 1399 1

27 100 Undirected 1402 1

30 33 Undirected 1405 1

30 43 Undirected 1408 1

30 56 Undirected 1411 1

30 65 Undirected 1414 1

30 79 Undirected 1417 1

30 88 Undirected 1420 1

30 86 Undirected 1423 1

30 98 Undirected 1426 1

38 64 Undirected 1460 1

38 65 Undirected 1461 1

38 68 Undirected 1462 1

38 77 Undirected 1463 1

38 79 Undirected 1464 1

(Table continues on next page)

266

(Table continues from previous page)

38 104 Undirected 1465 1

38 84 Undirected 1466 1

38 88 Undirected 1467 1

38 89 Undirected 1468 1

38 91 Undirected 1469 1

38 86 Undirected 1470 1

38 90 Undirected 1471 1

38 105 Undirected 1472 1

38 98 Undirected 1473 1

38 100 Undirected 1474 1

38 42 Undirected 1475 1

38 48 Undirected 1476 1

41 43 Undirected 1477 1

41 46 Undirected 1478 1

41 50 Undirected 1479 1

41 56 Undirected 1480 1

41 62 Undirected 1481 1

41 64 Undirected 1482 1

41 65 Undirected 1483 1

41 68 Undirected 1484 1

41 77 Undirected 1485 1

41 79 Undirected 1486 1

41 104 Undirected 1487 1

(Table continues on next page)

267

(Table continues from previous page)

41 84 Undirected 1488 1

41 88 Undirected 1489 1

41 89 Undirected 1490 1

41 91 Undirected 1491 1

41 86 Undirected 1492 1

41 90 Undirected 1493 1

41 105 Undirected 1494 1

41 98 Undirected 1495 1

41 100 Undirected 1496 1

41 42 Undirected 1497 1

41 48 Undirected 1498 1

43 46 Undirected 1499 1

43 50 Undirected 1500 1

43 56 Undirected 1501 1

43 62 Undirected 1502 1

43 64 Undirected 1503 1

43 65 Undirected 1504 1

43 68 Undirected 1505 1

43 77 Undirected 1506 1

43 79 Undirected 1507 1

43 104 Undirected 1508 1

43 84 Undirected 1509 1

43 88 Undirected 1510 1

(Table continues on next page)

268

(Table continues from previous page)

43 89 Undirected 1511 1

43 91 Undirected 1512 1

43 86 Undirected 1513 1

43 90 Undirected 1514 1

43 105 Undirected 1515 1

43 98 Undirected 1516 1

43 98 Undirected 1517 1

43 100 Undirected 1518 1

43 42 Undirected 1519 1

43 48 Undirected 1520 1

46 50 Undirected 1521 1

46 56 Undirected 1522 1

46 62 Undirected 1523 1

46 64 Undirected 1524 1

46 65 Undirected 1525 1

46 68 Undirected 1526 1

46 77 Undirected 1527 1

46 79 Undirected 1528 1

46 104 Undirected 1529 1

46 84 Undirected 1530 1

46 88 Undirected 1531 1

46 89 Undirected 1532 1

46 91 Undirected 1533 1

(Table continues on next page)

269

(Table continues from previous page)

46 86 Undirected 1534 1

46 90 Undirected 1535 1

46 105 Undirected 1536 1

46 98 Undirected 1537 1

46 100 Undirected 1538 1

46 42 Undirected 1539 1

46 48 Undirected 1540 1

50 56 Undirected 1541 1

50 62 Undirected 1542 1

50 64 Undirected 1543 1

50 65 Undirected 1544 1

50 68 Undirected 1545 1

50 77 Undirected 1546 1

50 79 Undirected 1547 1

50 104 Undirected 1548 1

50 84 Undirected 1549 1

50 88 Undirected 1550 1

50 89 Undirected 1551 1

50 91 Undirected 1552 1

50 86 Undirected 1553 1

50 90 Undirected 1554 1

50 105 Undirected 1555 1

(Table continues on next page)

270

(Table continues from previous page)

50 98 Undirected 1556 1

50 100 Undirected 1557 1

50 42 Undirected 1558 1

50 48 Undirected 1559 1

56 62 Undirected 1560 1

56 64 Undirected 1561 1

56 65 Undirected 1562 1

56 68 Undirected 1563 1

56 77 Undirected 1564 1

56 79 Undirected 1565 1

56 104 Undirected 1566 1

56 84 Undirected 1567 1

56 88 Undirected 1568 1

56 89 Undirected 1569 1

56 91 Undirected 1570 1

56 86 Undirected 1571 1

56 90 Undirected 1572 1

56 105 Undirected 1573 1

56 98 Undirected 1574 1

56 100 Undirected 1575 1

56 42 Undirected 1576 1

56 48 Undirected 1577 1

62 64 Undirected 1578 1

(Table continues on next page)

271

(Table continues from previous page)

62 65 Undirected 1579 1

62 68 Undirected 1580 1

62 77 Undirected 1581 1

62 79 Undirected 1582 1

62 104 Undirected 1583 1

62 84 Undirected 1584 1

62 88 Undirected 1585 1

62 89 Undirected 1586 1

62 91 Undirected 1587 1

62 86 Undirected 1588 1

62 90 Undirected 1589 1

62 105 Undirected 1590 1

62 98 Undirected 1591 1

62 100 Undirected 1592 1

62 42 Undirected 1593 1

62 48 Undirected 1594 1

64 65 Undirected 1595 1

64 68 Undirected 1596 1

64 77 Undirected 1597 1

64 79 Undirected 1598 1

64 104 Undirected 1599 1

64 84 Undirected 1600 1

64 88 Undirected 1601 1

(Table continues on next page)

272

(Table continues from previous page)

64 89 Undirected 1602 1

64 91 Undirected 1603 1

64 86 Undirected 1604 1

64 90 Undirected 1605 1

64 105 Undirected 1606 1

64 98 Undirected 1607 1

64 100 Undirected 1608 1

64 42 Undirected 1609 1

64 48 Undirected 1610 1

65 68 Undirected 1611 1

65 77 Undirected 1612 1

65 79 Undirected 1613 1

65 104 Undirected 1614 1

65 84 Undirected 1615 1

65 88 Undirected 1616 1

65 89 Undirected 1617 1

65 91 Undirected 1618 1

65 86 Undirected 1619 1

65 90 Undirected 1620 1

65 105 Undirected 1621 1

65 98 Undirected 1622 1

65 100 Undirected 1623 1

65 42 Undirected 1624 1

(Table continues on next page)

273

(Table continues from previous page)

65 48 Undirected 1625 1

68 77 Undirected 1626 1

68 79 Undirected 1627 1

68 104 Undirected 1628 1

68 84 Undirected 1629 1

68 88 Undirected 1630 1

68 89 Undirected 1631 1

68 91 Undirected 1632 1

68 86 Undirected 1633 1

68 90 Undirected 1634 1

68 105 Undirected 1635 1

68 98 Undirected 1636 1

68 100 Undirected 1637 1

68 42 Undirected 1638 1

68 48 Undirected 1639 1

77 79 Undirected 1640 1

77 104 Undirected 1641 1

77 84 Undirected 1642 1

77 88 Undirected 1643 1

77 89 Undirected 1644 1

77 91 Undirected 1645 1

77 86 Undirected 1646 1

77 90 Undirected 1647 1

(Table continues on next page)

274

(Table continues from previous page)

77 105 Undirected 1648 1

77 98 Undirected 1649 1

77 100 Undirected 1650 1

77 42 Undirected 1651 1

77 48 Undirected 1652 1

79 104 Undirected 1653 1

79 84 Undirected 1654 1

79 88 Undirected 1655 1

79 89 Undirected 1656 1

79 91 Undirected 1657 1

79 86 Undirected 1658 1

79 90 Undirected 1659 1

79 105 Undirected 1660 1

79 98 Undirected 1661 1

79 100 Undirected 1662 1

79 42 Undirected 1663 1

79 48 Undirected 1664 1

104 84 Undirected 1665 1

104 88 Undirected 1666 1

104 89 Undirected 1667 1

104 91 Undirected 1668 1

104 90 Undirected 1669 1

104 105 Undirected 1670 1

(Table continues on next page)

275

(Table continues from previous page)

104 98 Undirected 1671 1

104 100 Undirected 1672 1

104 48 Undirected 1673 1

104 42 Undirected 1674 1

84 88 Undirected 1675 1

84 89 Undirected 1676 1

84 91 Undirected 1677 1

84 90 Undirected 1678 1

84 105 Undirected 1679 1

84 98 Undirected 1680 1

84 100 Undirected 1681 1

84 48 Undirected 1682 1

84 42 Undirected 1683 1

88 89 Undirected 1684 1

88 91 Undirected 1685 1

88 86 Undirected 1686 1

88 90 Undirected 1687 1

88 105 Undirected 1688 1

88 98 Undirected 1689 1

88 100 Undirected 1690 1

88 48 Undirected 1691 1

88 42 Undirected 1692 1

89 91 Undirected 1693 1

(Table continues on next page)

276

(Table continues from previous page)

89 86 Undirected 1694 1

89 90 Undirected 1695 1

89 105 Undirected 1696 1

89 98 Undirected 1697 1

89 100 Undirected 1698 1

89 48 Undirected 1699 1

89 42 Undirected 1700 1

91 86 Undirected 1701 1

91 90 Undirected 1702 1

91 105 Undirected 1703 1

91 100 Undirected 1704 1

91 42 Undirected 1705 1

86 90 Undirected 1706 1

86 105 Undirected 1707 1

86 98 Undirected 1708 1

86 100 Undirected 1709 1

86 42 Undirected 1710 1

90 105 Undirected 1711 1

90 98 Undirected 1712 1

90 100 Undirected 1713 1

90 42 Undirected 1714 1

105 98 Undirected 1715 1

105 100 Undirected 1716 1

(Table continues on next page)

277

(Table continues from previous page)

105 42 Undirected 1717 1

98 100 Undirected 1718 1

98 42 Undirected 1719 1

100 42 Undirected 1720 1

278

Appendix D: Craft Beer Festivals and attendees in Florida 2015

Hops for Heroes - Craft Beer Festival January 17 Brewers Tasting Room, 11270 4th Street North, St. Petersburg, FL 33716

Green Bench Brewing Co Green Bench Mead & Cider Coppertail Brewing Co Saint Somewhere Brewing Co Lakeland Brewing JDub's Brewing Co 3 Sons Brewing Co Stilt House Brewery Rapp Brewing Co 3 Daughters Brewing St Pete Brewing Co Big Storm Brewing Co Darwin Brewing Mastry's Brewing Mad Beach Brewing Barley Mow Pinellas Ale Works Cigar City ======Jupiter Craft Brewers Festival Jan 24 Roger Dean Stadium, Jupiter, FL

279

Stone Brewing Co Lefthand Brewing Co Saint Somewhere Brewery Funky Buddha Brooklyn Brewery (NYC) / Amacord Brewery (Italy) Bold City Brewery Orange Blossom Brewing Co Cigar City Big Bear Brewing Co Green Room Brewing Swammp Head Brewery Brewzzi Inlet Brewing Co Victory Brewing Co Rivertowne Copperpoint Barrel of Monks Tomoka 26 Degrees ======Miami Beer Festival Jan 31 Marlins Park, Miami, FL Wynwood Brewery Brooklyn Brewery Saltwater Brewery Florida Beer Company

280

Founders Brewery Miami Brewing Co. Fort LauderAle MIA Brewing Co. Anchor Steam Beer Goose Island Beer Company Abita Samuel Adams Woodchuck Cider Holy Mackerel New Belgium Brewery Breckenridge Brewery Left Hand Brewing Company Sweetwater Brewery Funky Buddha Brewery Due South Brewery Sexy Llama Brewing Company Miami Beer and Wine Cigar City Brewery ======305 Beer Fest @ Miami Airport Convention Center Feb 7 The Miami Airport Convention Center 777 Nw 72nd ave, Miami FL

Spanish Marble Brewing Co Big Bear Brewing Co

281

Adelbert's Brewery Harpoon Brewery The Dude Brews Orange Blossom Brewing Co Lagunitas Brewing Florida Beer Co Concrete Beach Brewery Miami Brewing Co Daddy Brews Biscayne Bay Brewing Co Alhambra Cervezas Mahou New Belgium Brewing Teqava Sierra Nevada Sam Adams Wicked Wort Brewing Angry Orchard Traveler Beer Co 3 Sons Brewing Blue Moon J Wakefield Brewing Schofferhofer (umlaut over the first O) Radeberger Modelo Abita Brooklyn Brewery

282

Newcastle Brown Ale Strongbow Cider Dos Equis ======Bonita Springs Craft Beer Festival Feb 7 Riverside Park, Bonita Springs, FL

Participating breweries in 2015 : 3 Daughters Brewing 5 Rabbit Cerveceria Abita Brewing Company Angry Orchard B. Nektar Meadery Bells Brewery Big Top Brewing Company Boulevard Brewing Company Brewery Cigar City Brewing DESTIHL Restaurant & Brew Works Dogfish Head Fat Point Brewing Fort Myers Brewing Company Founders Brewing Co. Funky Buddha Brewery Goose Island Brewing Company Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Company

283

Lagunitas Brewing Company Lexington Brewing Momentum Brew House Naples Beach Brewery New Belgium Brewing Company Point Ybel Brewing Company Saint Arnold Brewing Company Sam Adams Sierra Nevada Brewing Company Southern Tier Brewing Company, Inc. Stevens Point Brewing Co. Terrapin Uinta Brewing Company Victory Brewing Company ======Brewmaster's Invitational - A Festival of Beer, Food, Music & Art April 2 Exploration Tower, 670 Dave Nisbet Drive, Cape Canaveral, FL

The Alchemist Wicked Weed Devil's Bankbone The Lost Abbey Marble Bagby Beer Bell's Kern RIver

284

Side Project 3 Floyds Sierra Nevada Crooked Stave Allagash Braufactum Birrificio Italiano Sun King The Bruery Pizza Port Moonlight Surly Mikkeler Lagunitas New Belgium Faction 8 Wired The Rare Barrel Beachwood Cigar City Funkwerks Russian River Boulevard Green Flash Mahrs Brau Beavertown Fiftyfifty

285

Stone Bear Republic Hollister Ballast Point Boneyard Revolution Golden Road Dogfish Head Firestone Walker Founders Jester King Southern Tier Rahr & Sons Trumer Brauereu Birrificio Ducato ======Festival of Florida Beers – Pinellas Park Apr 4

======Brew at the Zoo – Palm Beach @ Palm Beach Zoo Apr 11 West Palm Beach, FL accomplice Bangin' banjo Barrel of Monks Brew Bus

286

Concrete Beach Copperpoint Devor Due South Florida Beer Company Funky Buddha J Wakefield Khoffner LauderAle MIA brewing Miami Brewing Saltwater Side Door Brewing Tequesta Tomoka Twisted Trunk Wynwood ======Old School BeerFest by Concrete Beach @ Delray Beach Center for the Arts May 8

Leinenkugal, Blue Moon, Sam Adams, Concrete Beach, Sierra Nevada, Crabbies,

287

Harpoon, New Belgium, Lagunitas, Key Billy, Golf Beer, Miami Brewing Co., J Wakefield Brewing, Sweetwater, Abita, Brooklyn, OBP, Florida Beer Company, Copper Tail ======Sour, Berliner Weisse & Lambic Festival May 16 8101 Park Boulevard North Pinellas Park, FL 33781

JJ Taylor Distribution 20 bottles plus Browns Distribution 20 bottles plus Great Bay Distribution bottles and kegs Progressive Distribution 30 plus bottles Cavalier Distributing kegs and bottles Microman Distributors kegs and 20 plus bottles Green Bench Brewing Funky Buddha Brewery

288

Coppertail Brewing Cigar City Brewing Cigar City Cider & Mead Darwin Brewing Co Rapp Brewing Founders Brewing Co 7th Sun Brewing Angry Chair Brewing Proof Brewing Co Tomoka Brewing NOLA brewing MIA Brewing Co Redlight Redlight Beer Parlour & Brewery Arkane Aleworks Hidden Springs Ale Works Point Ybel Brewing Co Overflow Brewing Hoods Up Brewery Bastet Brewing Wild Oak Artisan Ales Gravity Brewlab Sahtipaja Brewery Late Start Brewing Dan Raynes Josh Brengle/Andre Guionnaud Willards Tap House Suncoast Barley Mashers

289

Dunedin Brewers Guild Special Hoperations Tampa Bay BEERS PUBGuild ======Greater Miami Beer Fest @ Doubletree Miami Hotel and Miami Airport Convention Center Jul 11

Wynwood Brewing Company MIA Brewing Co. Descarga Brewing Company Daddy Brews Concrete Beach Brewery Miami Brewing Company St.Bernardus Fathead’s Brewery Sixpoint JDub’s Brewing Company & Tap Room Biscayne Bay Brewing Company Darwin Brewing Company Brockton Abbie Brewing Company CerveTech Brew Institute Lagunitas Brewing Co Black Market Brewing Co. Adelbert’s Brewery CounterCulture Kambucha EnerBee 290

Greenflash Brewery Infected Brewery Winston Brewery Islamorada Beer Company ======Bad Ass Beer Fest 2015 @ Tampa Bay Brewing Company Jul 31 Oldsmar, FL

3 Daughters Brewing Angry Chair Brewing Arkane Aleworks Barley Mow Brewing Company Big Storm Brewing Co. Big Top Brewing Company The Brew Bus - Tampa Bay Cigar City Brewing Cigar City Cider and Mead Copp Brewery Coppertail Brewing Co Croxbone Brewing Company Darwin Brewing Company Dunedin House of Beer Dunedin Brewery ESB Brewing Company Florida Avenue Brewing Co Four Stacks Brewing

291

Green Bench Brewing Co. Hidden Springs Ale Works JDub's Brewing Company & Tap Room Mad Beach Brewing Mastry's Brewing Co. Marker 48 Brewing Motorworks Brewing Pair O' Dice Brewing Pinellas Ale Works R-Bar Brewing Rapp Brewing Company Rock Brothers Brewing Company Six Ten Brewing Southern Brewing & Winemaking Special Hoperations St Petersburg Brewing Company Saint Somewhere Brewing Co. Stilt House Brewery Tampa Bay Beer Week Tangent Brewing Three Palms Brewing Two Henrys Brewing Company Ulele The Wild Rover Brewery Escape Brewing Company Brandon Bootleggers Homebrew Club Hopcloth

292

Suncoast Barley Mashers Guild PUBGuild Crooked Can Brewing Company ======

Shelton Brothers Beer Festival October 16 and 17, 2015 The Coliseum in St. Petersburg, Florida

INTERNATIONAL BREWERIES: 3 Fonteinen (Belgium) – 8 Wired (New Zealand) – Amager Bryghus (Denmark) – Baird (Japan) – Blaugies (Belgium) – Brasserie du Pays Flamand (France) – Brasserie Dunham (Quebec) – Brekeriet (Sweden) – Brewfist (Italy) – Brewski* (Sweden) – Bridge Road (Australia) – Buxton (England) – Cantillon (Belgium) – Cervesa Guineu (Spain) – La Companyia Cervesera del Montseny (Spain) – Coniston (England) – De la Senne (Belgium) – De Molen (Netherlands) – De Ranke (Belgium) – Dieu du Ciel! (Quebec) – Edge* (Spain) – Freigeist + Monarchy (Germany) – Fyne Ales (Scotland) – ‘t Hofbrouwerijke (Belgium) – Jandrain-Jandrenouille (Belgium) – Jopen* (Netherlands) – La Choulette (France) – Le Trou du Diable (Quebec) – Les Trois Mousquetaires (Quebec) – Magic Rock (England) – Malmo* (Sweden) – Marina (Spain) – Mikkeller (Denmark) – Moor Beer (England) – Nøgne Ø (Norway) – Oedipus* (Netherlands) – Oersoep (Netherlands) – Page 24 (France) – Renaissance (New Zealand) – Ridgeway (England) – Ritterguts (Germany) – Rooie Dop (Netherlands) – Siren (England) – Struise (Belgium) – Thiriez (France) – To Øl (Denmark) – Toccalmatto (Italy) – Trois Dames (Switzerland) – Way Beer* (Brazil) – Weird Beard (England) – Westvleteren (Belgium)

U.S. BREWERIES: 18th Street* – Arizona Wilderness (AZ) – Bagby Beer Co. (CA) – Beachwood (CA) – Bluejacket (DC) – Crooked Stave (CO) – Faction (CA) – Fonta Flora (NC) – Grimm Artisanal Ales* (NY) – Hill Farmstead (VT) – Jester King (TX) – Jolly Pumpkin (MI) – Libertine (CA) – Mystic (MA) – Oxbow (ME) – Perennial* (MO) – Prairie Artisan Ales (OK) – Pretty Things (MA) – Sante Adairius (CA) – Side Project (MO) FLORIDA BREWERIES: 7venth Sun* – Cigar City* – Coppertail* – Cycle Brewing* – Funky Buddha* – Gravity Brewlab* – Green Bench* – Playalinda* – Redlight Redlight* – Saint Somewhere

293

CIDER: Argus Cidery* (TX) – Artisan Beverage Coop (MA) – Cidrerie du Perche (France) – Les Vergers de la Colline (Quebec) – Peckham’s (New Zealand) – Ribela (Spain) ======South Florida Brewfest @ Chaplin School of Hospitality & Tourism Management Nov 7

Wynwood Homesick Brewing Darwin Brewing Florida Avenue Brewing Holy Mackerel Brooklyn Brewery Islamorada Beer COmpany Sea Dog Brewing Co Tequesta Brewing Co Barrel of Monks Native Brewing Orlando Brewing Saltwater The Dude Brews Motorworks Brewing MIA Brewing Miami Brewing Legacy Caribbean Craft Brewery King Fox Brewery Infected Brewery 294

Biscayne Bay Brewing Co Big Storm Brewing Co Hialeah Brewing Co Funky Buddha Descarga Brewing Co Brew Hub Keybilly Island Ale Gravity Brewlab ======10th Annual Fall Craft Beer Fest @ Cajun Cafe on the Bayou Nov 7 ======Barns and Beer @ Old McMicky’s Farm Nov 13

Tampa Bay Brewing Company Big Storm Brewing Company Motorworks Brewing Coppertail Brewing Company 3 Daughters Brewing Stilt House Brewery Goose Island Magic Hat Bold City Brewery FLA Ave Brewing Darwin Brewing Company Big Top Brewing

295

Blue Point Brewing Sweetwater Brewing Victory Brewing Company Shipyard/Sea Dog Brewing Woodchuck Brewing ======Orlando Beer Festival @ Festival Park Nov 14

Big Storm Brewing Big Top Brewing BJs Restaurant and Brewhouse Black Cauldron Brewing Bold City Bowigens Beer Company Broken Strings Brewery Bugnutty Brewing Company Cask & Larder Central 28 Cigar City Brewing Crooked Can Brewing Darwin Brewing Dead Lizard Brewing Company Ellipsis Brewing Florida Ave Brewery Goose Island Guinness

296

Heineken USA Home Sick Brewing Hood's Up Brewery Kona Brewing New Belgium Brewing Ocean Sun Brewing Orange Blossom Brewing Orlando Brewing Pair O' Dice Brewing Company Playalinda Brewing Company Red Cypress Brewing Redlight Redlight Reprise Brewing Rogue Pub Saint Arnold Brewery Shipyard/Sea Dog Brewing Suncreek Brewery SweetWater Brewing Tampa Bay Brewing Tap & Grind Ten10Brewing Tenth and Blake Beer Company The Bear and Peacock The Hourglass Brewery Tomoka Brewing Company Widmer Brothers Brewing Winter Park Beer Company

297

Wop's Hops Brewing Company ======Craft Beer and Bubble Fest Marathon, Florida December 27, 2015

Waterfront-Crazy Lady, Pallina Founders Magic Hat #9 Saltwater Dogfish Head Cigar City Due South Funky Buddha Big Storm Islamorada Wynwood Kona Motorworks

298

Bibliography

Allaway, A. W., Berkowitz, D., and D’Souza, G. (2003). Spatial diffusion of a new loyalty program through a retail market. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 137-151. Alworth, J. (2016) Breweries are a mark of a thriving community. All about beer magazine. Retrieved from: http://allaboutbeer.com/breweries-thriving- communities/. Accessed online April 2016. Anderson, C. (2005) Long tail 101.The long tail blog http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/faq/. Accessed April 30, 2014 Anderson, C. (2006) The Longer tail. New York: Hyperion. Baginski, J. and Bell, T. (2011) Under-tapped? An analysis of craft brewing in the southern United States. Southern geographer 51(1):165-185. Baginski, J. (2008) On the trail of fine ale: the role of factor conditions in the location of craft breweries in the United States. Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Batty, M. (2012) Building a science of cities. Cities 29:S9-S16. The Beer Mapping Project (2014) http://beermapping.com/.Accessed online May 1st, 2014. Bell, J. (2013) We are all long tail marketers now. The kill zone blog http://killzoneauthors.blogspot.com/2013_06_01_archive.html#.U2Ep7PldV8E.A ccessed April 30, 2014. Benn, E. (2013). The name game: trademark disputes bubble over in craft beer. BeerAdvocate, issue 79. Retrieved from: http://www.beeradvocate.com/mag/8278/the-name-game-trademark-disputes- bubble-over-in-craft-beer/. Accessed online April 2016. Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Rowman Altamira. Bernot, K. (2016) Why are beer people so outraged? Draft magazine. Retrieved from: http://draftmag.com/beer-outrage-internet/. Accessed online April 2016. Bird, S. E. (2002) It makes sense to us: cultural identity in local legends of place. Journal of contemporary ethnography 31(5):519-547.

299

Borgatti, S., Mehra, A., Brass, D., and Labianca, G. (2009) Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323: 892-895. Borgatti, S. and Halgin, D. (2011) Analyzing affiliation networks. In Scott, J. and Carrington, P. (eds) The Sage handbook of social network analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Calik, M. and Sozbilir, M. (2014) Parameters of content analysis. Education and science 39(174): 33-38. Campbell, S.D. (1996): “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities: Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296-312. Carroll, G. and Swaminathan, A. (2000) Why the microbrewery movement? American journal of sociology 106(3):715-762. Chinni, D. and Gimpel, J. (2010) Our patchwork nation: the surprising truth about the “real” America. Gotham, New York. Cigar City (2016) Hunahpu’s Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://cigarcitybrewing.com/beer/hunahpus/?age-verified=265a7a7200. Accessed online April 2016. Craft Brewers Association (2014a) History of craft brewing. Retrieved from http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/about-us/history-of-craft-brewing. Accessed online May 2014. (2014b) From Ashland, OH to Ashland, OR cheers across the country for American craft beer week. Retrieved from https://www.brewersassociation.org/press-releases/from-ashland-oh-to-ashland- or-cheers-across-the-country-for-american-craft-beer-week/. Accessed online May 2014. (2014c) Florida craft beer sales statistics. Retrieved from https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics/by-state/?state=FL. Accessed online May 2014. (2015) BA position statements. Retrieved from https://www.brewersassociation.org/government-affairs/ba-position-statements/. Accessed online September 2015. Crouch, A. (2014). The great beer trademark wars. All about beer magazine, 35(1). Retreived from: http://allaboutbeer.com/article/beer-trademarks/. Accessed online April 2016. Cosgrove, D., & Jackson, P. (1987). New directions in cultural geography. Area, 95-101.

300

DeNote, M. (2014) The great Florida craft beer guide. Seaside Publishing: Florida.

Beer for the Daddy (2012, September 24) A brief history of Florida beer. Retrieved from https://beerforthedaddy.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/a-brief- history-of-florida-beer/.

Derrett, R. (2009) How festivals nurture resilience in regional communities. In Ali- Knight, J., Robertson, M., Fyall, A., and Ladkin, A. (eds) International perspectives of festivals and events: paradigms of analysis. San Diego: Elsevier.

De Wit, C. (2013) Interviewing for a sense of place. Journal of cultural geography, 13(1):120-144. Dietler, M. (2006) Alcohol: anthropological/archaeological perspectives. Annual review of anthropology 35:229-249. Dillivan, M. (2012) Finding community at the bottom of a pint glass: an assessment of microbreweries’ on local communities. Master’s thesis, Ball State University, Indiana. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Malt beverages. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch09/final/c9s12-1.pdf. Accessed online March 2014. Explorando Mexico. (2015) Beer history in Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.explorandomexico.com/about-mexico/4/252/. Accessed online August 2015. Fadiman, M. 2011 (2011) Sustainable development in the Galápagos: The role of coffee production on San Cristobal Island. Papers of the Applied Geography Conferences 34:102-111 Farina, A. (2000). The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics. BioScience, 50(4), 313-320. Flack, W. (1997) American microbreweries and neolocalism: “ale-ing” for a sense of place. Journal of cultural geography, 16(2):37-53. Florida Department of State (2016) Florida history. Retrieved from http://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/. Accessed online April 2016. Florida TaxWatch (2003) The impact of tourism on Florida’s economy: the full story. Retrieved from http://www.cefa.fsu.edu/content/download/47182/327651/file/florida_tourism03.p df. Accessed March 2014.

301

Florida TaxWatch (2013) Investing in tourism: analyzing the economic impact of expanding Florida tourism. Retrieved from http://floridataxwatch.org/resources/pdf/2013TourismFINAL.pdf. Accessed March 2014. Freegood, J., Pierce-Quinonez, M., and Meter, K. (2011) Emerging assessment tools to inform food system planning. Journal of agriculture, food systems, and community development. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.023 Galanty, H. (2016) Hops used to save honey bees. Craftbeer: brewers' banter. Retrieved from http://www.craftbeer.com/brewers_banter/hops-to-the-rescue. Accessed online April 2016. Gardner, R.O. (2004) The portable community: mobility and modernization in bluegrass festival life. Symbolic interaction 27(2):155-178. Geertz, C. (1973) Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books: New York. Gibson, W. (2014) Florida population surging again. Retrieved from http://www.sun- sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-florida-migration-20141017-story.html. Accessed online September 2015. Grigg, D. (2004) Wine, spirits, and beer: world patterns of consumption. Geography 89(2):99-110. Gohmann, S. (2015) Why are there so few breweries in the South? Entrepreneurship theory and practice. Haggith, M., Prabhu, R., Colfer, C. Ritchie, B., Thomson, A., and Mudavanhu, H. (2003) Infectious ideas: modelling the diffusion of ideas across social networks. Small- scale forest economics: management and policy, 2(2):225-239. Halker, M. (2015, January 17) A bit of perspective. Retrieved from http://www.duesouthbrewing.com/blog/. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Retrieved online March 2016 from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html#Closeness. Hawkins, C. and Ryan, L.A. (2013) Festivals spaces as third places. Journal of place management and development 6(3):192-202. Heath, D. (2000) Drinking occasions: comparing perspectives on alcohol and culture. Michigan: Taylor and Francis. Hayden, B., Canuel, N., & Shanse, J. (2013). What was brewing in the Natufian? An archaeological assessment of brewing technology in the Epipaleolithic. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 20(1), 102-150.

302

Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Urban political ecology. The nature of cities: Urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism, 1-20. Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of rural studies, 16(3), 295-303. Hoalst-Pullen, N. What’s brewing: thoughts on the geography of beer. Presented at the annual Association of American Geographers conference, San Francisco, California, 2016. Holtkamp, C. (2015) How local is your beer?: assessing neolocalism via microbreweries and developing a toolset for further application. Presented at the annual Association of American Geographers conference, Chicago, Illnois, 2015. Jackson, P., 1991. Mapping meanings: a cultural critique of locality studies. Environment and Planning A 23, 215–228 Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, Vintage. Jaeger, K. and Mykletun, R. (2013) Festivals, identities, and belonging. Event Management 17:213-226. Johnson, C. Y., Halfacre, A. C., & Hurley, P. T. (2009). Resistant place identities in rural Charleston County, South Carolina: Cultural, environmental, and racial politics in the Sewee to Santee area. Human Ecology Review, 16(1), 1-16. Kloppenburg, Jr., J., Hendrickson, J., and Stevenson, G.W. (1996) Coming into the foodshed. Agriculture and human values 13(3): 33-42. Konda, K. (2014) The origin of “With great power comes great responsibility and seven other surprising parts of spider-man’s comic book history. Retrieved from https://weminoredinfilm.com/2014/04/22/the-origin-of-with-great-power-comes- great-responsibility-7-other-surprising-parts-of-spider-mans-comic-book-history/. Accessed online April 2016. Korten, D. (2000) Creating a post corporate world. Retrieved from http://www.centerforneweconomics.org/publications/lectures/korten/david/creatin g-a-post-corporate-world. Accessed online April 2016. Kozinets, R. (2009) Netnography: doing ethnographic research online. New York, Sage Publications Ltd. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city (Vol. 11). Cambridge, MIT press. MacLeod (2013) More words for things beer and beery. Beer blog. Retrieved from http://beerblog.genx40.com/archive/2013/january/morenewwordsfor March 2014 Manzo, L. and Perkins, D. (2006) Finding common ground: the importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of planning literature 20:335-350.

303

McLaughlin, R., Reid, N., and Moore, M. (2014) The ubiquity of good taste: a spatial analysis of the craft brewing industry in the United States. In M. Patterson and N. Holst-Pullen (eds) The geography of beer: regions, environment and societies. New York: Springer. McMillan, D. and Chavis, D. (1989) Sense of community: a definition and theory. Journal of community psychology 14:6-23.

Mohan, G., & Mohan, J. (2002). Placing social capital. Progress in human geography, 26(2), 191-210.

Morgan, K. (2014) Nourishing the city: the rise of the urban food question in the global north. Urban studies 1-16. NBC-2 (2007) Bar threatened by approaching hurricane season. Retrieved from http://www.nbc-2.com/story/10686055/bar-threatened-by-approaching-hurricane- season. Accessed online June 2014 Newman, M. E. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM review, 45(2), 167-256. Nurin, T. (2016) Women who brew, changing the face of beer. Retrieved from http://njmonthly.com/articles/eat-drink/women-who-brew-changing-beer/. Accessed online March 2016. Ogle, M. (2006) Ambitious brew: the story of American beer. Harcourt books: Florida. Ostrom, E. (1997). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, American political science review, 92(1):1-22. Parnwell, M. J. (2007). Neolocalism and renascent social capital in northeast Thailand. Environment and planning D: society and space, 25(6), 990-1014. Pinellas Memory (1965) Brief history of Dunedin, Florida 1965. Retrieved from http://cdm15989.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15989coll5/id/13. Accessed online April 2016 Porter, M. (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard business review November-December. Reprint number 98609. Project for Public Spaces (2016). Jane Jacobs. Retrieved from http://www.pps.org/reference/jjacobs-2/. Accessed online April 2016. Ruan, S., Wang, W., & Levin, S. A. (2006). The effect of global travel on the spread of SARS. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 3(1), 205. Sauer, C. O. (1941). Foreword to historical geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 31(1):1-24.

304

Scherberger, T. (2012). Size matters: craft brewers challenge Florida's beer container laws. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/retail/size-matters-craft-brewers- challenge-floridas-beer-container-laws/1213918. Accessed online April 2016. Schiefenhovel, W. and Macbeth, H. (2011) Liquid bread: beer and brewing in cross- cultural perspective. New York: Berghahn Books. Schnell, S. (2013) Deliberate identities: becoming local in America in a global age. Journal of cultural geography. 30(1):55-89.

Schnell, S. and Reese, J. (2003) Microbreweries as tools of identity. Journal of cultural geography 21(1):45-69.

(2014) Microbreweries, place, and identity in the United States. In M. Patterson and N. Holst-Pullen (eds) The geography of beer: regions, environment and societies. New York: Springer.

Scott, A. J. (2010). Cultural economy and the creative field of the city. Geografiska Annaler: series B, human geography, 92(2), 115-130.

Sewell, S. (2014) The spatial diffusion of beer from its Sumerian origins to today. In M. Patternson and N. Hoalst-Pullen (eds). The geography of beer: regions, environment and societies. New York: Springer.

Shilton, A. (2016) Craft beer vs. Budweiser: how small-brewers are winning back the neighborhood. Retrieved from http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-03-03/craftbeer-vs-budweiser-how-small-brewers-are-winning-back-the-neighborhood. Accessed online April 2016. Sims, R. (2009) Food, place, and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of sustainable tourism 17(3): 321-336. Sismondo, C. (2011) America walks into a bar. New York: Oxford University Press. Sizemore, C. (2015) Why big beer is struggling the age of craft beer. Forbes, 06/9/2015. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2015/06/09/why-big- beer-is-struggling-in-the-age-of-craft-beer/2/#e90b311982b4. Accessed online April 2016. Sparhawk, a. (2016). The reason it’s so difficult to answer, “Why craft beer?” Beer Banter. Retrieved from http://www.craftbeer.com/brewers_banter/reason- difficult-answer-craftbeer. Accessed online April 2016 via Beer in Florida blog. Stevenson, G. W., Ruhf, K., Lezberg, S., & Clancy, K. (2007). Warrior, builder, and weaver work: Strategies for changing the food system. Remaking the North American food system: Strategies for sustainability, 33-64. Swinnen, J.(ed) (2011) The economics of beer. New York: Oxford University Press. 305

Swyngedouw, E., & Heynen, N. C. (2003). Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode, 35(5), 898-918. Tremblay, V. and Tremblay, C.H. (2009). The U.S. brewing industry: data and economic analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press. Trudeau, D. (2006). Politics of belonging in the construction of landscapes: place- making, boundary-drawing and exclusion. Cultural geographies, 13(3), 421-443.

Tuan, Y. (1975) Place: an experiential perspective. Geographical review 65(2): 151-165. (1980) Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24:3–8 (1991) Language and the making of place: A narrative-descriptive approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81(4): 684-696.

Valente, T. (1996) Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social networks 18:69-89.

Vandenenel, H. (2015) Breweries flourish in industrial parks. All about beer magazine, 05/15/2015. Retrieved from http://allaboutbeer.com/breweries-flourish-in- industrial-parks/. Accessed online April 2016.

VinePair (2015) Map: the state of American craft beer-2015. Retrieved from http://vinepair.com/state-of-craft-beer-map-2015/#chartDescription-3. Accessed online September 2015.

Walden G. (2014) Florida breweries. Stackpole Books: Pennsylvania.

Watson, A. (2015) Southern brew deserts: Florida, and the fight for a taste of place. Presented in the interactive short paper session: Geographies of Beer, Part I: Theory, Method and Practice, held at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Geographers, in Chicago, IL on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015.

Watson, B. (2014) Craft brewer defined. Retrieved from http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/business-tools/craft-brewing- statistics/craft-brewer-defined. Accessed online February 2014.

(2014) Closing signal competition, not problems. Retrieved from https://www.brewersassociation.org/insights/closings-signal-competition-not- problems/. Accessed online May 2015.

Wekerle, G. R. (2004). Food justice movements policy, planning, and networks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(4):378-386.

Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of rural studies, 19(1), 23-32.

306

Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well- being in changing landscapes. Landscape ecology, 28(6), 999-1023. Young, P. (2009) Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: contagion, social influence and social learning. American economic review, 99(5), 1899-1924. Zelinsky, W. (1973) The cultural geography of the United States. California: Pearson Education, Ltd.

307