By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

 

Moab Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Moab is one of 25 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Project. 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.

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. Moab City advertised the survey via social media. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 21, 2020 to March 19, 2020.

A total of 354 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Moab resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Contact Information: Courtney Flint, courtney.flint@usu.edu, 435-797-8635
Acknowledgements: Utah League of Cities and Towns, Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, and Caitlyn Rogers

Respondent Characteristics

The vast majority of Moab survey respondents (98%) were full-time residents. Length of residency ranged from 0 to 74 years with an average of 19 years. The majority of respondents (76%) had been living in Moab more than 5 years and 41% had been living there at least 20 years. Nearly two thirds (64%) lived in Moab City, 27% lived in Spanish Valley, 4% in Castle Valley and 5% elsewhere in the county.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. Females and those with a college degree were over-represented in the survey sample. Latinos and other non-white individuals are under-represented as are those with children and lower incomes. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents are not fully representative of Moab residents.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Moab

Demographic Characteristics Moab
Online Survey 2020
(354 Respondents)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 35.5% 43.2%
Age 40-59 40.1% 26.4%
Age 60 or Over 24.4% 30.4%
Female 70.1% 51.1%
Male 29.9% 48.9%
No college degree 40.2% 67.8%
College degree (4-year) 59.8% 32.2%
Median household income NA $46,875
Income Under $50,000 36.6% 51.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 24.3% 23.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 14.5% 10.9%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.7% 8.8%
Income $150,000 or over 7.9% 5.0%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 8.6% NA
Other religion 33.2% NA
No religious preference 58.1% NA
White (non-Latino) 93.1% 74.2%
Nonwhite or Latino 6.9% 25.8%
Children under 18 in household 28.7% 32.8%
Employed (combined) 82.3% 67.7% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work 0.3% 3.3% (unemployed)
Other 32.7% 29.0% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Moab

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Moab. These wellbeing indicators were measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Moab was 3.93, with 77% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Moab was 3.03.

Personal wellbeing scores were higher in Castle Valley (average 4.62) than in Moab City (average 3.90), Spanish Valley (average 3.89) or elsewhere (average 4.06), but it should be noted that there were only 13 respondents from Castle Valley.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Moab. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 54% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Moab. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Moab? Data - 1 Very Poor: 5% of respondents; 2: 21% of respondents; 3: 43% of respondents; 4: 26% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 4% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Moab falls below the average of all cities surveyed in early 2020. Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Moab in the “Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities” group, along with four other cities in this study as indicated in the graph below. There is no statistically significant difference among these cities on personal wellbeing.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.

Wellbeing Domains in Moab

According to national and international entities tracking wellbeing, a number of common domains make up wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, and indicated their importance to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. Based on percentage with a good or excellent rating, the top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents were connection with nature, safety and security, and physical health. The domain importance was indicated on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top three most important wellbeing domains were physical health, mental health, and safety and security.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Moab. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Connection with Nature - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 66% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 34% rated as good or excellent; Category: Income - 66% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 34% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 69% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 31% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Moab. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Income - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 35% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 49% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 51% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables for age, gender, education, religion, and income were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among Moab respondents. These relationships are shown in Table 2 and are based on a multivariate generalized linear model using the categories from Table 1, excluding children in the household and employment and adding length of residence.

Table 2
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino 20+ Years Resident
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing  +
   +     + 
$150,000+ >
under $75,000		   – 
Wellbeing in Moab              
Connection to Nature      + – vs no religous preference     – 
Cultural Opportunities  +           –
Education  +   +        
Leisure Time   +    +    + 
$150,000+ >
$74,999-$99,999 		    
Living Standards  +    +    +    
Local Environmental Quality              
Mental Health   +            
Physical Health              
Safety & Security      +        
Social Connections  
    +     + 
$150,000+ >
$50,000-$74,999		    
Income  +    +    +     
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino Zip Code
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature    + + – vs no religious preference     – 
Cultural Opportunities     +   –  vs no religious preference and other religion –     –
Education         – 
$75,000-$99,999 > $150,000+		    
Leisure Time       – vs no religious preference      
Living Standards    + –        
Local Environmental Quality +
vs 18-39		     – vs no religious preference and other religion    + 
$150,000+ >
$50,000-$74,999		    
Mental Health     +   – vs no religious preference  – 
$75,000-$99,999 > $150,000+		    
Physical Health    +   – vs no religious preference and other religion      
Safety and Security    + –        
Social Connections    +  +        
Income      –        

Wellbeing Matrix for Moab

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Moab. Living Standards and Local Environmental Quality fall into the red quadrant, indicating that they were found to be of higher than average importance but rated lower than average. Income approaches this quadrant, as its average rating is well below the overall average rating of all the domains while its average importance is just below the overall average importance of all the domains. It is important to note that income, cultural opportunities, and education are the domains that have an average rating below 3.0 (moderate). The average importance score for all domains is higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Moab Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Connection with Nature, Physical Health, Leisure Time, and Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Social Connections. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Education, and Income. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality and Living Standards.

Community Action & Connections in Moab

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Moab. 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 Moab, the average score was 3.60. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.32.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Moab. Subtitle: In Moab, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 11% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 22% of respondents.

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Moab. Subtitle: In Moab, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 31% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents.

In terms of demographics, those with a college degree reported higher levels of community connectedness than their counterparts (see Table 3). There was no significant relationship between the demographic variables and response to the question on community action in Moab. Additionally, there was a significant, positive relationship between individuals’ community connectedness and their overall personal wellbeing.

Table 3
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino 20+ years Resident
Do people in Moab take action?              
Do you feel connected to your community?      +        

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Moab. Of the 19 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 79% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 58 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 182 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 49% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 77 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 44% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, rivers and streams, red rock, and lakes, as well as trails and city parks, were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Farmland had a positive influence for two-thirds of survey respondents.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, over one-third (34%) of respondents indicated that the presence of residential development has a positive influence on their wellbeing, while 27% indicated that it has a negative influence. Comparatively, 81% of respondents indicated that the presence of hotels and motels in their landscape has a negative influence on their wellbeing. Additionally, more respondents viewed extractive industry, commercial development, and manufacturing industry as having a negative influence on wellbeing than a positive influence.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Moab 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, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 20% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 66% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 27% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 34% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 19% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 46% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 18% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 58% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 27% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Hotels and Motels - 81% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Moab

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of survey respondents noted that the rate of population growth in Moab is too fast. Similarly, 62% of survey respondents indicated that the pace of economic development is too fast while a just under a quarter (24%) indicated that it is too slow. Compared to other cities surveyed in early 2020, Moab is just about average in regards to the percent of respondents that find population growth too fast. However, it has the largest percent of respondents that find economic development to be too fast and a relatively small percent of respondents that find it to be too slow.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Moab. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Moab? Data - Too Slow: 4% of respondents; Just Right: 24% of respondents; Too Fast: 64% of respondents; No Opinion: 8% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Moab. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Moab? Data - Too Slow: 24% of respondents; Just Right - 8% of respondents; Too Fast - 62% of respondents; No Opinion - 5% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth in Sampled Utah Cities. Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 91% indicated too fast; Lehi - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 83% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 80% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Draper - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Tooele - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 70% indicated too fast. North Logan - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 66% indicated too fast. Moab - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 64% indicated too fast; Nibley - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 60% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nephi - 6% of respondents indicated too slow, 53% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 12% of respondents indicated too slow, 35% indicated too fast; Richfield - 14% of respondents indicated too slow, 18% indicated too fast; Delta - 31% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Helper - 22% of respondents indicated too slow, 8% indicated too fast.

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development in Sampled Utah Cities. Draper - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 44% indicated too fast; Lehi - 9% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nibley - 19% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Moab - 24% of respondents indicated too slow, 62% indicated too fast; North Logan - 29% of respondents indicated too slow, 19% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 35% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 44% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 45% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 47% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Herriman - 48% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated too slow, 15% indicated too fast; Helper - 52% of respondents indicated too slow, 2% indicated too fast; Nephi - 54% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 56% of respondents indicated too slow, 11% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 58% of respondents indicated too slow, 12% indicated too fast; Richfield - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 5% indicated too fast; Tooele - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 10% indicated too fast; Delta - 80% of respondents indicated too slow, 0% indicated too fast.

Risks and Assets for Wellbeing in Moab

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of local issues were a major or minor risk or asset to wellbeing in Moab (see Table 4).

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Moab Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 70% of respondents)		 Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 32% of respondents)
Recreation Opportunities Substance Abuse
Access to Public Land Tourist Economy
Access to Quality Food Affordable Housing
Public Safety Employment Opportunities
Air Quality Access to Healthcare
  Opportunities for Youth

Respondents also wrote in other assets and risks as shown in Table 5. It is clear that some people not only listed current assets, but also those they wish Moab had.

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Moab Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Housing availability, affordability, and for local families (4)                                                                                           Competent elected officials, feeling voice heard and respected by local government, progressive governance (3)                                        Commercial overnight development, hotel development, nightly rentals, conversion of long-term housing to tourist accommodations, poorly planned development, allocations toward tourism vs tourism impact infrastructure (11) Noise, noise and light pollution, UTV noise, off-road motorized vehicles (10)                                           
Access to city trails, bike trails (2) Ability to learn self-sufficiency Local/city government, politicians, polarized local politics, entrenched bureaucracy, government control (6) Crowds of visitors, overcrowding, overpopulation, growth (6)
Creative, considerate planning with healthy communication Dark skies and quiet Traffic (5) Access to mental health services (2)
Employment Friends Educational opportunities, educated citizenry (2) Greed, especially developers (2)
Fun Government agencies Limited water supply (2) Bad Utah government
Isolation Less concrete and asphalt surfaces Climate change Corrupt cops
Less tourism Limited growth Dark skies law Elderly care
More control over building Pay  Empty second homes High rent
Protection of public lands, water, resources Public health Lack of childcare Lack of police and first responders
Public transportation Smaller stores More money should be spent on activities, events for the community Need more recycling
Schools Waste management Parking garage Social connections
    Speed limites in town Youth do not have a lot for them

Moab Specific Questions

Shopping for Home Goods

The majority of respondents (72%) leave Grand County once or twice a month to shop for home goods, and 22% do not leave Grand County to shop for home goods. Very few (3.4%) leave to shop for home goods once or twice a week and the same amount (3.4%) leave more frequently than once or twice a week. In terms of shopping online for home goods, 43% shop once or twice a month, 32% shop once or twice a week, 15% shop more frequently than once or twice a week, and 11% do not shop online for home goods.

Bar Chart. Title: Shopping outside of Grand County. Subtitle: How often do you leave Grand County to shop for home goods? Data – I do not leave Grand County to shop for home goods: 21% of respondents; Once or twice a month: 72% of respondents; Once or twice a week: 3% of respondents; More frequently than once or twice a week: 3% of respondents.       Bar Chart. Title: Shopping Online. Subtitle: How often do you shop online for home goods? Data – I do not shop online for home goods: 11% of respondents; Once or twice a month: 43% of respondents; Once or twice a week: 32% of respondents; More frequently than once or twice a week: 15% of respondents.

Quality of Life in Neighborhoods

The average neighborhood quality of life score (on a 1-5 scale where 1=very poor and 5=excellent) was 3.51. Over half (52%) of respondents noted that the quality of life in their neighborhood is good or excellent, while over one-third (36%) noted that it is average. Respondents were also asked to comment on factors influencing the quality of life in their neighborhood; 202 respondents commented. The graphs below show the distribution of responses to the neighborhood quality of life question, as well as a summary of the most frequently mentioned topics offered in the comments and the tone of the comments.

Dominant themes in neighborhood quality of life comments included the following:

  • ATV/Traffic noise is a nuisance for everyone
  • Tourists bring traffic, noise, parked trailers
  • Cost of living and housing is very high
  • Respondents who rated quality of life lower did not feel connected to their neighbors, had a poor neighborhood image, and did not mention feeling safe, having good recreation access, or living in a good location
  • Respondents who rated quality of life higher felt more connected to neighbors, had good access to recreation, a positive neighborhood image, felt neighborhoods were quiet, safe, and in a good location


A Few Quotes

  • “Too many people. Not enough resources. Very poor housing opportunity for median income families. No economic diversity.”
  • “High cost of living. Unaffordable housing.”
  • “Noise from the UTVs, increased tourist traffic has negatively impacted my neighborhood.”
  • “Good cooperation between neighbors, open spaces, walk-in residences, close to the bike path.”

Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Neighborhood Comment. Data: 50 positive comments, 31 negative comments, 18 mixed comments.

Bar Chart. Title: Most Frequently Mentioned Topics. Subtitle: For Those Rating Neighborhood Quality of Life as Good or Excellent. Data: Friendly/Connected – mentioned 33 times; Quiet – mentioned 22 times; ATV Noise – mentioned 21 times; Traffic – mentioned 15 times; Good Rec Access – mentioned 14 times; Feels Safe – mentioned 13 times; Good Location – mentioned 13 times. Bar Chart. Title: Most Frequently Mentioned Topics. Subtitle: For Those Rating Neighborhood Quality of Life as Very Poor, Poor, or Average. Data: Cost of Living – mentioned 27 times; Traffic – mentioned 23 times; Poor Image/Trash – mentioned 18 times; Vacation Rentals – mentioned 18 times; ATV Noise – mentioned 16 times; Not Connected/Hostile – mentioned 13 times; Local Leadership – mentioned 10 times.

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 140 respondents (40% of those that completed the survey). By far, the most important issue to Moab residents is the recreational tourism industry. Many other complaints were directly related to tourism, such as housing, natural resources, ATV noise, and cost of living. Quite a few people expressed dissatisfaction with the decisions of the state and local governments. Several people feel that the elected officials do not have the best interest of Moab citizens at heart and do not feel like their concerns are heard. Overall, people are worried that tourism is taking precedence over the wellbeing of local residents.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Perspectives on too much tourism
  • Frustration with local leadership
  • High cost of living and housing
  • Worry about sustainable growth
  • Concern about future direction of Moab

A Few Quotes:

  • “I feel that unchecked growth of the tourist industry is a major drawback to living in Moab.”
  • “I recognize that the tourist economy supports and sustains the Moab community in many ways, but I am concerned about the rapid rate of growth in tourism.”
  • “Moab is a wonderful community in a place of almost unparalleled beauty. However, it is threatened by rampant, insufficiently planned development, motorized recreation, air pollution, lack of any simple public transportation, and limited water.”
  • “Rampant development and tourism is tearing apart the fabric of our community—unaffordable housing, noise and decreased quality of life, impacts to public lands, and lack of upward mobility/opportunity.”

On This Page

Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 7 positive comments, 124 negative comments, 14 mixed comments.
Bar chart. Title: Major Themes. Theme: Recreation – mentioned 58 times; Government – mentioned 39 times; Housing – mentioned 32 times; Growth and Development – mentioned 21 times; Transportation – mentioned 21 times; Economy – mentioned 29 times; Natural Resources – mentioned 18 times.