Blanding Wellbeing Survey Findings 2022

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

Blanding City is one of 33 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2022. 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.

We are grateful to all participants who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. Additionally, we are grateful to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and USU Extension for their financial support.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2022 Blanding survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in April of 2022, Blanding City advertised the survey via social media and the city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 207 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 79.2% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Blanding survey had 282 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Blanding was estimated at 2,254, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 207 survey responses in 2022 represent 9.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.49%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Blanding were below average among the 33 study cities.

Average Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Blanding remained nearly the same between 2021 and 2022.

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)

  • Education
  • Living Standards
  • 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.

Perceptions that residents take action in Blanding were higher than most other study communities. Feelings of community connection were higher in Blanding than about half of the other study communities. In terms of local action and community connection. Latter-day Saints were higher than those from other religion categories or who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. 

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

Top concerns for the future of Blanding were:

  • Water Supply (90% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Quality Food (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (78% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (77% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Blanding?
Positive social climate with small-town feel, feelings of safety, and access to nature and surrounding natural beauty. 

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

In addition to providing partner cities with the opportunity to take part in surveys, the Utah Wellbeing Project has worked to provide curated resources for community leaders and citizens that aim to improve specific aspects of wellbeing. These Wellbeing Resources can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website, along with other useful tools and information.

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Blanding City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Mental Health, Education, Living Standards, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Access to Quality Food. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Blanding 77.3%
Part Time Residents of Blanding 0.5%
Resident of Surrounding Area 22.2%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 66 years
Length of Residency — Average 21.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 21 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 21.7%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Blanding. People who are age 30-49, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, have children under 18 in the household, are employed, own their home, or have household incomes over $150,000 were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and 70 or older, who are non-white, and those with household incomes ranging from under $25,000 to $49,000 were particularly underrepresented. Note that the number of respondents differed between years. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below.

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Blanding

Demographic Characteristics Blanding Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
282 Respondents 		 Online 2022
207 Respondents
Age 18-29 11.7% 17.7% 27.0%
Age 30-39 26.7% 31.1% 20.2%
Age 40-49 24.3% 22.6% 13.0%
Age 50-59 16.5% 15.9% 13.6%
Age 60-69 15.5% 11.0% 9.6%
Age 70 or over 5.3% 2.4% 16.6%
Adult Female 62.9% 63.0% 56.2%
Adult Male 36.6% 37.0% 43.8%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.0% NA
No college degree 50.0% 48.2% 70.2%
College degree (4-year) 50.0% 51.8% 29.8%
Median household income NA NA $57,758
Income under $25,000 9.7% 8.6% 23.1%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 19.0% 12.3% 24.3%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 24.9% 25.8% 17.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 22.4% 23.3% 17.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 14.6% 16.6% 11.9%
Income $150,000 or over 9.3% 13.5% 5.5%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 80.1% 82.8% NA
Other religion 10.2% 7.4% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 9.7% 9.8% NA
Hispanic/Latino 2.0% 3.1% 8.8%
White 86.4% 89.4% 68.0%
Nonwhite 13.6% 10.6% 32.0%
Married 82.4% 82.9% 52.1%
Children under 18 in household 55.6% 64.0% 38.7%
Employed 78.2% 79.9% 63.3%
Out of work and looking for work 1.9% 2.4% 2.1%
Other 19.9% 17.7% 34.7%
Own home/Owner occupied 79.0% 78.0% 64.7%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 21.0% 22.0% 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 were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Blanding was 3.85 with 70% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Blanding was 3.44 with 53% 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: 2% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% 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: 11% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 45% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 8% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Blanding over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores have stayed nearly the same between 2021 and 2022. 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: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Blanding. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.88, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.48, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.85, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.44

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Blanding as a Rural Hub/Resort Community (and we have combined these with the Traditional Rural Communities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the Rural city cluster, Blanding was below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Blanding was only statistically significantly higher than Moab, and not statistically different from any other city in the cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Blanding was statistically significantly higher than Moab and East Carbon, but significantly lower than Beaver, Bluff, and Helper. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.27; Millcreek: Average Score 4.24; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 4.19; Layton: Average Score 4.16; Bountiful: Average Score 4.09; Sandy: Average Score 4.07; South Jordan: Average Score 4.06; West Jordan: Average Score 4.03; Midvale: Average Score 3.94; Logan: Average Score 3.89; Tooele: Average Score 3.76. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Vineyard: Average Score 4.31; Highland: Average Score 4.28; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.25; Nibley: Average Score 4.20; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.15; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Lehi: Average Score 4.10; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.02; Santaquin: Average Score 3.98; Herriman: Average Score 3.87. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Beaver: Average Score 4.18; Helper: Average Score 4.15; Nephi: Average Score 4.11; Tremonton: Average Score 4.10; Park City: Average Score 4.04; Bluff: Average Score 3.96; Ephraim: Average Score 3.89; Delta: Average Score 3.88; Blanding: Average Score: 3.85; Price: Average Score 3.83; East Carbon: Average Score: 3.73; Moab: Average Score: 3.50. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.03; South Jordan: Average Score 4.02; Bountiful: Average Score 3.84; Sandy: Average Score 3.79; Millcreek: Average Score 3.79; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 3.72; Layton: Average Score 3.71; West Jordan: Average Score 3.55; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Midvale: Average Score 3.24; Tooele: Average Score 3.15. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Highland: Average Score 4.15; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.05; North Logan: Average Score 3.99; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.98; Nibley: Average Score 3.87; Vineyard: Average Score 3.84; Santaquin: Average Score 3.72; Lehi: Average Score 3.61; Herriman: Average Score 3.49; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Helper: Average Score 4.09; Bluff: Average Score 3.84; Beaver: Average Score 3.82; Ephraim: Average Score 3.75; Nephi: Average Score 3.62; Park City: Average Score 3.50; Delta: Average Score 3.44; Blanding: Average Score 3.44; Tremonton: Average Score: 3.32; Price: Average Score 3.15; East Carbon: Average Score: 2.98; Moab: Average Score: 2.84. 

Wellbeing Domains in Blanding

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 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 four highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Blanding were Safety and Security (78%), followed by Connection with Nature (77%), Local Environmental Quality (67%), and Leisure Time (65%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (97%), Mental Health (93%), Physical Health (91%), and Living Standards (90%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Blanding. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Blanding. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 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 - 28% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 72% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 29% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 48% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 52% rated as important or very important.

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 Leisure Time were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Education, Livings Standards, Physical Health, and Mental Health fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings.

Scatterplot. Title: Blanding 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 and Living Standards. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature and Local Environmental Quality. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health, Mental Health, Education, and Living Standards.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Blanding

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Blanding residents. The number of respondents changed over time. It appears that leisure time, cultural opportunities and social connections improved considerably between 2021 and 2022, perhaps due to the COVID Pandemic settling to dome degree. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Blanding, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.7; Category: Safety and security- 2021- 4.0 2022- 4.1; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.9, 2022- 4.05, Category: Education- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.7; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.4; 2022 3.6; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.6; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.85, 2022- 3.8; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.8, Category: Social Connection- 2021- 3.1; 2022- 3.3, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.95, 2022- 3.4.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables for age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships among Blanding respondents as shown in the table below based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data. The +/- sign indicates whether the wellbeing score in the specific demographic group was significantly higher or lower than the reference group in each demographic variable (p<.05). 

Table 3
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Blanding

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing      + +    
Wellbeing in Blanding        +    
Connection with Nature        +
vs A/A/NP
 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Cultural Opportunities        +    
Education +
vs 18-39		   +      
Leisure Time +
vs 18-39		      +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Living Standards +
vs 18-39		      +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality        +    
Mental Health +
vs 18-39		          
Physical Health              
Safety & Security         +
vs Under $75,000		  
Social Connections        +
vs A/A/NP		    
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Cultural Opportunities         -
vs $75,000 - $99,999		  
Education     +      
Leisure Time       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Living Standards       +    
Local Environmental Quality       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Mental Health    +
   +
vs A/A/NP		    
Physical Health +
vs 18-39		     +    
Safety and Security       +
vs A/A/NP		 -
vs $100,000 - $149,999		  
Social Connections            + 
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection 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 3.50. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.13.

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: 6% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 32% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 20% 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: 11% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% 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 in the highest income category ($150,000+) reported higher levels of community connection than respondents with household incomes under $75,000 and between $100,000 and $149,999. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p<.05). 

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Blanding take action?       +  +
vs Under $75,000 and $100,000 - $149,999
  
Do you feel connected to your community?

    +    

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Blanding. Of the 11 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 91% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 9% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 40 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 90 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 60% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 40 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 32% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 68% 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. Blanding was in the top 5 on perceived community action and in the upper half on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 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: Hyde Park 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: Highland 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: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 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: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% 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: South Jordan 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: Vineyard 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: Millcreek 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: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 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: Santaquin 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: Moab 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: Tremonton 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: Layton 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 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: Sandy 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: Tooele 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: Logan 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: Lehi 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: Herriman 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: Cottonwood Heights 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: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; 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; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% 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 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 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: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 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: 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: Hyde Park- 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: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 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: South Jordan- 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- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 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: Nibley- 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: Santaquin- 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: Moab- 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: Layton- 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: East Carbon- 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: Sandy- 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: Tremonton- 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: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 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: Lehi- 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: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (78%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (81%) and recreating in parks in the city (78%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Blanding. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 81% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 82% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 69% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 78% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 74% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 49% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 42% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 49% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Blanding respondents, participating in motorized recreation and non-motorized recreation on public lands, city recreation programs, and gardening were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing.

Participating in non-motorized recreation on public lands and waters in Utah, participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, and gardening were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing.

Participating in motorized recreation, participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, and gardening were all positively and significantly related to community connection. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, rivers and streams, lakes, 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.

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 - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 9% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 59% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 55% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 45% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 10% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 43% 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 (53%). On the pace of economic development, 52% indicated it was too slow, 34% just right, and 6% too fast.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Blanding. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Blanding? Data – 18% of respondents rated too slow; 53% of respondents rated just right; 18% of respondents rated too fast; 11% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Blanding. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Blanding? Data – 52% of respondents rated too slow; 34% of respondents rated just right; 6% of respondents rated too fast; 8% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show that perceptions on the current rate of population growth and pace of economic development in Blanding did not change substantially between 2021 and 2022. The most notable difference was the increase in respondents indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast from 10% to 18%. The majority of respondents, however, still felt that the Blanding population growth rate is just right. 

Type: Line Title: Blanding Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 57% rated just right, 18% rated too slow, 10% rated too fast 2022: 53% rated just right, 19% rated too slow, 18% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Blanding Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 51% rated too slow, 33% rated just right, 4% rated too fast 2022: 52% rated too slow, 34% rated just right, 6% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Blanding compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development in 2022. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Graph 23: Population Growth Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: 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: Logan – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Draper – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 56% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 51% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek - 1% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 66% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast;City: Highland – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 82% of respondents rated too fast;City: Tremonton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 60% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 40% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast.  Graph 24: Economic Development Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: 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, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 41% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Jordan – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 34% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 22% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 49% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: Highland – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 29% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 77% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tremonton – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 45% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 31% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 30% of respondents rated too slow, 18% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 61% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 67% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Future Blanding Population


An additional question related to population growth was added to the Blanding survey. Respondents were asked, "Where would you like to see Blanding population in the next 5-10 years?" Responses were as follows:

  • 35.6% indicated as it is (<3,800)               
  • 32.8% indicated 4,000+
  • 21.3% indicated 5,000+
  • 10.3% indicated 7,500+

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, Access to Quality Food, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with at least 88% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Blanding. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Blanding, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 10% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 90% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 25 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Tourism growth (3) City management
Restaurants (3) Care of city properties and parks
Economic growth (2) Federal overreach
Representation Commercial technical service competition
Walking and jogging trails More gym space
Mass messaging for emergencies Enforcement of leash laws
Declining population Senior care
Home rentals City planning
Entertainment General goods
More stop signs instead of yield signs Sidewalks

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Blanding and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Blanding. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Blanding highly valued the social climate in the town which includes the community as well as the small, rural feel of the town. The nature and beauty, safety, and peace and quiet found in Blanding are also valued by many residents. Additional comments were made regarding the social climate, specifically on the divide in the community. People also made comments about the city image of Blanding, wanting to see the city cleaned up. Some people were also concerned about the recreation and tourism in Blanding.

On This Page