By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Moab Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Moab City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project and has been involved since 2020. 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 Moab survey with initial information on changes since 2020 and 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, Moab City advertised the survey via social media, press release leading to local media coverage in newspaper and radio, and city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 443 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 90% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 354 responses. The 2020 Moab Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.

  • The adult population of Moab was estimated at 4,167 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 443 survey responses represent 10.6% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.4%. 

Key Findings in Moab

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Moab were below average among 29 study cities. Female respondents indicated many wellbeing categories or domains as more important than males. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Connection to Nature
  • Safety and Security
  • Leisure Time

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Safety and Security
  • Connection to Nature
  • Leisure Time

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Mental Health
  • Local Environmental Quality

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 62% of respondents and was more likely to decline for female respondents. Wellbeing in Moab declined in the last year for 79% of respondents and was more likely to decline for female respondents and those living in Moab longer than 5 years. 

Perceptions that residents take action in Moab and feelings of community connection were higher in Moab than in most other study communities.

Commercial Development and Extractive Industry were seen to have negative influences on wellbeing for the majority of respondents, though Natural Landscapes were highly positive.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development in Moab were too fast.

Top concerns for the future of Moab were:

  • Water Supply (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (87% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (80% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (78% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Health Care (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (74% Moderate or Major Concern)

Off road vehicles were an overwhelming concern found in respondent comments.

What do people value most about Moab? 
Access to nature, sense of community connection and small town feel, abundant recreation, and quiet and peacefulness.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Moab 93.9% Moab City 64.7%
Part Time Residents of Moab 6.1% Castle Valley 4.1%
Length of Residency - Range 0-65 years Spanish Valley 28.1%
Length of Residency - Average 18 years Other 3.2%
Length of Residency - Median 15 years  
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 25.6%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of Moab. People who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, and own their home, were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those with household 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 Moab

Demographic Characteristics Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2020 (N=443) 2021 (N=354)
Age 18-29 9.3% 8.5% 24.5%
Age 30-39 26.2% 19.5% 18.7%
Age 40-49 19.1% 17.0% 17.4%
Age 50-59 21.0% 17.0% 9.0%
Age 60-69 16.7% 24.5% 17.0%
Age 70 or over 7.7% 13.5% 13.4%
Adult female 70.1% 68.4% 51.1%
Adult male 29.9% 30.4% 48.9%
No college degree 40.2% 30.6% 67.8%
College degree (4-year) 59.8% 69.4% 32.2%
Median household income NA NA $46,875
Income under $25,000 8.8% 12.7% 30.9%
Income $25,000-$49,999 27.8% 29.0% 20.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 24.3% 22.5% 23.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 14.5% 13.0% 10.9%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.7% 14.5% 8.8%
Income $150,000 or over 7.9% 8.3% 5.0%
Latter-day Saint 8.6% 7.2% NA
Other religion 33.2% 33.0% NA
No religious preference 58.1% 59.8% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 3.8% 16.3%
White 93.1% 93.8% 90.4%
Nonwhite 6.9% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 6.2% 9.6%
Married 65.4% 65.5% 60.0%
Children under 18 in household 28.7% 23.8% 32.8%
Employed (combined) 82.3% 73.2% 67.7%
Out of work and looking for work 0.3% 1.5% 3.3%
Other 17.4% 25.3% 29.0%
Own home/owner occupied NA 75.3% 54.3%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 24.8% 45.7%

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 both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Moab was 3.82, with 71% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Moab was 3.13 with 35% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

 

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: 23% of respondents; 4: 54% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 17% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Moab Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Moab? Data - 1 Very Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 21% of respondents; 3: 40% of respondents; 4: 28% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 7% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from Moab, the average personal wellbeing score declined, but the community wellbeing score increased. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing From 2020-2021 in Moab. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 3.93, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.03, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.13, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.60

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

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 62% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 79% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Moab declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Moab. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 14%; Declined slightly: 48%; No change: 20%; Improved slightly: 13%; Improved Substantially: 5%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Moab. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Moab changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 27%; Declined slightly: 52%; No change: 14%; Improved slightly: 6%; Improved Substantially: 1%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Moab as a Rural Hub/Resort Community (and we have combined this with the Traditional Rural Communities). Within this cluster of cities, Moab falls below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Moab was not statistically significantly different from the other cities in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it is significantly lower than Wellington, La Verkin, Helper, and Richfield on overall community wellbeing.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.22; Sandy: Average Score 4.13; Bountiful: Average Score 4.06; South Ogden: Average Score 4.05; Layton: Average Score 3.98; Logan: Average Score 3.81; Tooele: Average Score 3.79. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.18; Vineyard: Average Score 4.17; Nibley: Average Score 4.16; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Hurricane: Average Score 4.08; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.06; Nephi: Average Score 4.05; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.03; Santaquin: Average Score 4.00; Lehi: Average Score 3.98; Ephraim: Average Score 3.86; Herriman: Average Score 3.86. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.07; Wellington: Average Score 4.02; La Verkin: Average Score 3.98; Blanding: Average Score 3.88; Moab: Average Score 3.82; East Carbon: Average Score 3.82; Price: Average Score 3.79, Delta: Average Score: 3.78; Vernal: Average Score 3.66.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Bountiful: Average Score 3.96; Draper: Average Score 3.89; Sandy: Average Score 3.80; Layton: Average Score 3.72; South Ogden: Average Score 3.68; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Tooele: Average Score 3.28. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.06; Vineyard: Average Score 3.95; North Logan: Average Score 3.91; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.87; Nibley: Average Score 3.80; Hurricane: Average Score 3.75; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.66; Lehi: Average Score 3.60; Santaquin: Average Score 3.59; Nephi: Average Score 3.58; Ephraim: Average Score 3.57; Herriman: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 3.88; Helper: Average Score 3.73; La Verkin: Average Score 3.62; Wellington: Average Score 3.61; Delta: Average Score 3.51; Blanding: Average Score 3.48; Vernal: Average Score 3.27; Price: Average Score 3.17, Moab: Average Score: 3.13; East Carbon: Average Score 2.98.

Wellbeing Domains in Moab

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions 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 two highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Moab were Connection to Nature and Safety and Security. The two most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health and Physical Health.

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: Safety and Security - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards – 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 63% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 37% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 16% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 84% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 77% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 23% 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? Physical Health - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% of respondents 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: Connection with Nature - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 43% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 57% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 24% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% 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.

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. Connection to Nature, Safety and Security, Leisure Time, and Physical Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Mental Health and Local Environmental Quality fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that they were of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Living Standards approaches this quadrant as its importance score was above average, but its rating is near the overall average rating. Please note that all domains except for Cultural Opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was 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: Connection with Nature, Safety and Security, Leisure Time, Physical Health, Living Standards. lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Income, Social Connections, Education, Cultural Opportunity. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Mental Health, Local Environmental Quality.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities and Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Connection to Nature for 23% of respondents and in Leisure Time for 22% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Moab. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 83% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 15% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 76% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 24% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 64% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 31% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 29% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 48% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 22% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 56% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 55% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 23% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 39% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 56% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 24% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 11% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Overall personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Community wellbeing in Moab was more likely to decline for female respondents and those living in Moab longer than 5 years.

  • Connection with nature was more likely to decline for those without a college degree.

  • Cultural opportunities were more likely to decline for those age 60+ and those with a college degree.

  • Living standards were more likely to decline for without a college degree and those with lower incomes.

  • Mental health was less likely to decline for those age 60+ and male respondents.


The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Moab residents. Some domains have been stable, while others show change over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Moab, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.15, 2021- 3.45; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.95; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 4.2, 2021- 4.25, Category: Education- 2020- 3.0, 2021- 3.05; Category: Physical Health: 2019- 4.75, 2020- 3.65, 2021 3.5; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.4; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.3; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.8, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.5; 2021- 3.15, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.95, 2021- 2.6.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among Moab respondents as shown in the table below. 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 strongest relationships (p < .05). 

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Moab

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +
   +   +
 
Wellbeing in Moab         +
+
Connection to Nature +
vs 18-39		     –   +
Cultural Opportunities +

       +  
Education +

       –
Over $100,000 > $50,000-$75,000		  
Leisure Time +   +   +
Over $150,000 > Under $50,000		 +
Living Standards +   – + –
Over $100,000 > Under $50,000		  
Local Environmental Quality +
vs 18-39		 +
   +

 +
Over $150,000 > $50,000-$74,999		 +
Mental Health –
 +        
Physical Health –   –   –
Over $100,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
Safety & Security            
Social Connections            
Income +
   +   +  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature +
vs 18-39		 + + –
 –
Over $100,000 >
Under $50,000		 +
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 40-49		         +
Education –
vs 18-39		 +   +    
Leisure Time            
Living Standards –
vs 18-39		   –      
Local Environmental Quality +
 +   –    
Mental Health   + +   +
Over $150,000 > $50,000-$74,999		  
Physical Health   + +      
Safety and Security +

 +   + vs A/A/NRP    
Social Connections +
vs 40-49		 +         
Income   + – + vs A/A/NRP    
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

 

Community Action & Connections in Moab

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection 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 3.32. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.16.

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: 5% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 25% of respondents; 4: 37% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 18% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Moab. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Moab as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 29% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents

Higher perceptions that people in Moab take action were reported by those age 60+, females, those with college degrees, those indicating their religion as Latter-day Saint (vs those indicating Agnostic/Atheist or No Religious Preference). Those age 60+, those with a college degree, and those with incomes over $100,000 (versus incomes $75,000-$99,999) reported higher levels of community connection. Residents in Moab for 5 years or less reported less action in Moab and lower community connection. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Colors indicate strongest relationships (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 Moab take action? +

 +

 +

 +vs A/A/NRP    –
Do you feel connected to your community? +

   +   +
Over $100,000>
$75,000-$99,999		  
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

 

A significant, positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < .05).

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Moab. Of the 22 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 82% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 18% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 95 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 73% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 223 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 51% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 70 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 43% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 57% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

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. Moab is in the top 5 on perceived community action and in the mid- range on 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 Moab was 2.61. Contacting a public official about an issue and working with others on an issue were the most common activities for Moab respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Moab. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 17% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 64% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 65% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 51% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 27% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 52% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 18% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

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, respondents were more divided, with commercial development and extractive industry reported as having a particularly negative influence on wellbeing.

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, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 63% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 35% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 55% indicated neither, 13% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 65% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Moab survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (62%) and that the pace of economic development was too fast (73%).

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Moab. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Moab? Data – 6% of respondents rated too slow; 20% of respondents rated just right; 62% of respondents rated too fast, 12% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Moab. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Moab? Data – 12% of respondents rated too slow; 8% of respondents rated just right; 73% of respondents rated too fast; 7% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Moab 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 Moab

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Moab. Water Supply, Affordable Housing, Opportunities for Youth, and Air Quality were the top four concerns with over three-quarters or more of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Moab. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Moab, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 184 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Noisy OHV’s were the most common additional concern.


Other Concerns Mentioned

Noise and OHVs (77)

Too much tourism and tourist development (18)

Traffic (16)

Overdevelopment, excessive building (9)

Destruction of public lands/fragile lands/ag lands (7)

Dissatisfaction with government and public finances (7)

Economic diversification and development (5)

Dark skies/light pollution (4)

Infrastructure (4)

Taxes (4)

Affordable housing (3)

Climate change (3)

Cost of living (3)

Water supply (3)

Activities for children (2)

Crowding (2)

Loss of aesthetics (2)

More activities and community events (2)

Motorized recreation discrimination (2)

Pet friendliness (including residences) (2)

Political conflict and polarization (2)

Tall buildings/height guidelines (2)

Too much construction/building (2)

Access to child care (1)

Access to farmland for produce growers (1)

Access to resources for children with disabilities (1)

Accountability of law enforcement in all land management agencies (1)

Activities for seniors (including with youth (1)

Adequate funding for EMS (1)

Allow locals to develop land (not major corporations) (1)

Bike lanes (1)

Californians (1)

City and county alignment and collaboration in future vision (1)

City caring about locals (1)

County Councils conscious of the negative impact of tourism (1)

COVID safety (1)

Diversity and justice (1)

Dog control (1)

Domestic violence (1)

Education administration (1)

Illegal housing (uninhabitable subletting) (1)

Illegal medical restrictions related to public health (1)

Land use (1)

Larger connection between USU and high school (1)

Locals involved in decisions (vs 2nd homeowners) (1)

More focus on ag and industry (1)

People to fill open jobs (1)

Need predator control for ravens and racoons (1)

Quality men to date (1)

Privacy (1)

Need a shooting range (1)

Quality of life (1)

Quality public library (1)

Sense of community with growth (1)

Stopping the environmentalists (1)

Sustainability (1)

Vocational and physical active rehabilitation for people with substance abuse history (1)

Water quality (1)

Water/sewer infrastructure (1)

  

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Moab 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 a summary will be added to the report later in 2021.

Key themes in response to “Please tell us what you value most about living in Moab”


Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Moab. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 232 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Connected, Small-Town Feel, Friendly, Good Values, Other; Category: Natural Resources- 284 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Good Environmental Quality, Farmland/Open Space, Other. Category: Category: Activities- 102 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest includes Abundant Recreation, Good Trails, Abundant Cultural Opportunities, Likes Tourism, Good Parks. Category; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 102 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Quiet and Peaceful, Feels Safe, Good Economy, Freedom and Privacy, Good Location, Well-Governed, Good Jobs, Other.

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

On This Page

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.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.