Blanding Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Contact Information
Dr. Courtney Flint
courtney.flint@usu.edu
435-797-8635

Summary

Blanding City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2021. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 Blanding survey as well as some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, Blanding City advertised the survey via social media, city website, and the Chamber of Commerce. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

282 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 effort with 74% complete responses.
The adult population of Blanding was estimated at 2,332 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The survey responses represent 12.1% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.47%.

Key Findings in Blanding

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Blanding were below average among 29 study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Categories:

Safety and Security
Connection with Nature
Local Environmental Quality

Most Important Wellbeing Categories:

Safety and Security
Mental Health
Physical Health
Living Standards

Red Zone Wellbeing Categories:
(High Importance, Low Rating)

Mental Health
Physical Health

Wellbeing varied within Blanding by demographic characteristics. Religion was a particularly important factor in the rating of wellbeing overall and for domains, with those indicating their religion as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rating wellbeing and most wellbeing domains as higher than those from other religions.

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in the last year for 49% of respondents. Wellbeing in Blanding declined in the last year for 58% of respondents. Personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for those age 60+.

Perceptions that residents take action in Blanding and feelings of community connection were higher in Blanding than in most other study communities (and Latter-day Saints were higher than those from other religion categories).

Many indicated Population Growth Rate is just right, but that the Pace of Economic Development is too slow.

Top concerns for the future of Blanding were:

Water Supply (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
Opportunities for Youth (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
Affordable Housing (80% Moderate or Major Concern)
Access to Public Land (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
Employment Opportunities (78% Moderate or Major Concern)
Access to Quality Food (76% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Blanding?
Friendly, connected, and small-town feel and access to nature

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Blanding	78.7%
Part Time Residents of Blanding	2.8%
Resident of Surrounding Area	18.4%
Length of Residency - Range	0-71 years
Length of Residency - Average	24 years
Length of Residency - Median	24 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less	17.1%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of Blanding. People who have at least a 4-year college degree, are married and are employed were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and 70+ and those with incomes under $25,000 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Blanding

Demographic Characteristics	Blanding Online Wellbeing Survey 2021 (N=282)	American Community Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Demographic Characteristics	Blanding Online Wellbeing Survey 2021 (N=282)	American Community Survey 2016-2020 Estimates	Age 18-29	11.7%	27.0%
Age 30-39	26.7%	20.2%
Age 40-49	24.3%	13.0%
Age 50-59	16.5%	13.6%
Age 60-69	15.5%	9.6%
Age 70 or over	5.3%	16.6%
Adult female	62.9%	56.2%
Adult male	36.6%	43.8%
No college degree	50.0%	70.2%
College degree (4-year)	50.0%	29.8%
Median household income	NA	$57,758
Income under $25,000	9.7%	23.1%
Income $25,000-$49,999	19.0%	24.3%
Income $50,000 to $74,999	24.9%	17.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999	22.4%	17.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999	14.6%	11.9%
Income $150,000 or over	9.3%	5.5%
Latter-day Saint	80.1%	NA
Other religion	10.2%	NA
No religious preference	9.7%	NA
Hispanic/Latino	2.0%	8.8%
White	86.4%	68.1%
Nonwhite	13.6%	32.0%
Married	82.4%	52.1%
Children under 18 in household	55.6%	38.7%
Employed (combined)	78.2%	63.0%
Out of work and looking for work	1.9%	2.1%
Other	19.9%	34.7%
Own home/owner occupied	79.0%	64.7%
Rent home/renter occupied/other	20.7%	35.3%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Blanding

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Blanding. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Blanding was 3.88, with 71% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Blanding was 3.48 with 49% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Blanding. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 25% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Blanding. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Blanding? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 35% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 15% of respondents

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 48% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 58% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Blanding declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Blanding. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 10%; Declined slightly: 39%; No change: 28%; Improved slightly: 20%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Blanding. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Blanding changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 12%; Declined slightly: 46%; No change: 31%; Improved slightly: 9%; Improved Substantially: 1%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Blanding as a Rural Hub/Resort City (we have combined these with Traditional Rural Communities). Within this cluster of cities, Blanding was below average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Blanding was not statistically significantly different from any other cities in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing. Blanding was only statistically significantly higher than East Carbon, and only statistically significantly lower than Richfield on overall community wellbeing.

Wellbeing Categories in Blanding

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common categories or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing well in each area. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Blanding were Safety and Security, Connection with Nature, and Local Environmental Quality. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, Physical Health and Living Standards.

Wellbeing Matrix for Blanding

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Blanding. Safety and Security and Connection to Nature were highly important and highly rated. Physical Health and Mental Health fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that it was of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Living Standards approaches this quadrant as its importance was close to the overall average domain importance, but rating fell near the overall average rating. Please note that all domains except Cultural Opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding:

Social Connections
Cultural Opportunities
Mental Health

No change was reported by most Blanding respondents for these areas:

Safety and Security
Local Environmental Quality
Living Standards
Education
Connection with Nature

Improvements were reported in Connection with Nature (17%).

The following relationships were found in Blanding between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

Personal Wellbeing was more likely to decline for those age 60+.
Cultural Opportunities were more likely to decline for those with a college degree.
Physical Health was more likely to decline for those from other religions (not Latter-day Saints).
Safety and Security was more likely to decline for those age 60+ than those age 40-59.
Social Connections were more likely to decline for female respondents.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to vary in relationship with wellbeing perspectives among Blanding respondents as shown in the table below. Religion was influential in wellbeing ratings, but not importance of domains. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Colors indicate the strongest relationships (p< .05).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Blanding

Domains Rated	Demographic Variables
	Age 60+	Female	College Degree	Latter-day Saint	Higher Income	Resident 5 Years or Less
	Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing				+ vs A/A/NP
Wellbeing in Blanding				+
Connection with Nature	+ vs 18-39				+	+
Cultural Opportunities		–		+
Education			+
Leisure Time					+ Over $150,000 > Under $50,000	+
Living Standards				+
Local Environmental Quality				+
Mental Health				+ vs A/A/NP
Physical Health				+	+
Safety & Security	– vs 40-59			+	+ Over $150,000 > $50,000-$74,999	+
Social Connections				+
	Age 60+	Female	College Degree	Latter-day Saint	Higher Income	Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains	Domain Importance
Connection with Nature
Cultural Opportunities
Education		+	+
Leisure Time
Living Standards					+ Over $150,000 > $50,000-$74,999
Local Environmental Quality
Mental Health	– vs 18-39	+
Physical Health	+ vs 40-59				+
Safety and Security	+ vs 40-59
Social Connections		+

A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action & Connections in Blanding
Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Blanding. Both questions were scored on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5). When asked about the degree to which people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities in Blanding, the average score was 3.46. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.30.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Blanding. Subtitle: In Blanding, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 5% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 26% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 19% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Blanding. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Blanding as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 22% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those from other religions or those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents with a college degree reported lower perceptions of local action than those without a college degree. This is based on generalized linear modeling with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). The strongest relationships are in color (p< .05).

Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions	Age 60+	Female	College Degree	Latter-day Saint	Higher Income	Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Blanding take action?			–	+
Do you feel connected to your community?				+

A significant, positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. Blanding was in the top 5 on both perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Blanding was 2.49. Church group activities were the most common activity for respondents (59%).

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, Blanding respondents were far more positive or neutral than negative.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Blanding Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 74% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 57% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 54% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 8% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 50% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Blanding survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (57%). On the pace of economic development, 51% indicated it was too slow, 33% just right, and 4% too fast.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Blanding. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Blanding? Data – 51% of respondents rated too slow; 33% of respondents rated just right; 4% of respondents rated too fast; 13% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Blanding compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Respondent’s Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: Population Growth, How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 72% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 52% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 48% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 90% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 84% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 80% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 79% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 70% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 68% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 57% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 55% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 35% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast;City: La Verkin – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 46% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 14% of respondents rated too slow, 29% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 18% of respondents rated too slow, 17% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 15% of respondents rated too slow, 11% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 32% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 35% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Economic Growth, How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 19% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 28% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 22% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 41% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 39% of respondents rated too slow, 13% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 73% of respondents rated too fast; City: La Verkin – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 64% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 57% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 51% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 75% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 79% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 66% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in Blanding

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Blanding. Water Supply, Opportunities for Youth, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with at least 80% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Other concerns were raised by 32 respondents who filled in the “other” category. More activities and cultural events and concern about government overreach were the two most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned
Lessons or activities, cultural events, activities for kids		Too much government, government overreach
Tourism		Cleanliness of town
Affordable housing		Wellbeing of Blanding
Indoor pool		Asthma, good quality air
Political divide		Sexual abuse
Unecessary COVID mandates		Public education
Restrict sale of alcohol		Change voting district
Advanced education for teenagers (concurrent enrollment)		Racism of whites towards Natives
Maintaining airport		Starter homes being bought for Airbnb’s
Local government		Federal overreach
Poor communication from city officials		Supporting small businesses
Economic growth opportunities		Walmart
Indifference of city officials to local businesses		Opportunity to own livestock in city limits
Representation without taxation		Education schools and university
Recreation department		Recreation cost

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Blanding with one question on what they value most about their city and another for any additional comments on wellbeing. A summary of values is below. Analysis is ongoing regarding all additional comments and will be added to the report later in 2021

Key Themes for “Please tell us what you value most about living in Blanding”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Blanding. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data – Category: Social Climate- 141 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include connected, small town feel, friendly, family-friendly, good values, diverse; Category: Natural Resources- 66 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include nature, good quality, farmland and open space; Category: City Character- 43 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include quiet and peaceful, good quality of life, freedom and privacy, historical, good location; Category: Safety- 30 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Feels safe, good police, low crime; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 41 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include abundant recreation, good schools, well-governed, good jobs, good pace of growth, good economy, other.

Summary
Survey Respondent Characteristics
Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Blanding
Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities
Wellbeing Domains
Wellbeing Matrix
How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?
How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?
Community Action and Connections in Blanding
Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities
Participation In Community Activities
Influence of Landscape Features on Wellbeing
Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development
Concerns in Blanding
Summary of Open Comments

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Madison Fjeldsted, Jordan Hammon, and Sarah Wilson.