Moab 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

Moab 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 Moab 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, Moab City advertised the survey via social media, the city website, monthly newsletters, and local print and radio media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.  

How many people responded?

  • 208 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 88.0% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Moab survey had 443 responses and the 2020 Moab survey had 354 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Moab was estimated at 4,290, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 208 survey responses in 2022 represent 4.8% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.63%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Moab were lowest among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing declined in Moab between 2021 and 2022. Wellbeing varied greatly by demographic characteristics with age, education, religion and income playing key roles.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Safety and Security
  • Leisure Time

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Living Standards

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Personal Wellbeing declined for 51% of respondents and Community Wellbeing declined for 74% of respondents. 

Perceptions that residents take action in Moab and feelings of community connection were lower in Moab than in many other study communities (and those age 60+ were higher in Moab than those age 40-59). 

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:

  • Affordable Housing (91% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (90% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (80% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Quality Food (77% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Moab? 
A sense of community, surrounding nature, trails, access to public lands. 

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 Moab City, key wellbeing issues include: Living Standards, Local Environmental Quality, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Access to Public Land. 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 1.1

Full Time Residents of Moab 91.8%
Part Time Residents of Moab 8.2%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 68 years
Length of Residency — Average 19.2 years
Length of Residency — Median 17 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 22.1%

Table 1.2

City Area Percent of Respondents
Moab City 64.4%
Castle Valley 1.9%
Spanish Valley 28.4%
Other 5.3%

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 Moab. People who are female, age 50-59, have at least a 4- year college degree, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29, those who are Hispanic/Latino, 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.

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

Demographic Characteristics Moab Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
354
Respondents		 Online 2021
443 Respondents		 Online 2022
208 Respondents
Age 18-29 9.3% 8.5% 13.4% 24.5%
Age 30-39 26.2% 19.5% 20.1% 18.7%
Age 40-49 19.1% 17.0% 20.7% 17.4%
Age 50-59 21.0% 17.0% 21.2% 9.0%
Age 60-69 16.7% 24.5% 16.2% 17.0%
Age 70 or over 7.7% 13.5% 8.4% 13.4%
Adult Female 70.1% 68.4% 61.8% 51.1%
Adult Male 29.9% 31.6% 35.4% 48.9%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 2.8% NA
No college degree 40.2% 30.6% 41.3% 67.8%
College degree (4-year) 59.8% 69.4% 58.7% 32.2%
Median household income NA NA NA $46,875
Income under $25,000 8.8% 12.7% 11.0% 30.9%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 27.8% 29.0% 25.0% 20.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 24.3% 22.5% 17.4% 23.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 14.5% 13.0% 13.4% 10.9%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.7% 14.5% 19.2% 8.8%
Income $150,000 or over 7.9% 8.3% 14.0% 5.0%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 8.6% 7.2% 3.5% NA
Other religion 33.2% 33.0% 29.8% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 58.1% 59.8% 66.7% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 2.8% 2.9% 16.3%
White 93.1% 93.8% 92.4% 90.4%
Nonwhite 6.9% (Includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 6.2% 7.6% 9.6%
Married 65.4% 65.5% 57.1% 60.0%
Children under 18 in household 28.7% 23.8% 23.7% 32.8%
Employed 82.3% 73.2% 76.5% 67.7%
Out of work and looking for work 0.3% 1.5% 1.1% 3.3%
Other 17.4% 25.3% 22.3% 29.0%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 75.2% 66.9% 54.3%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 24.8% 33.1% 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 were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Moab was 3.50 with 50% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Moab was 2.84 with 25% 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: 3% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Moab. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Moab? Data - 1 Very Poor: 11% of respondents; 2: 29% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 17% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 9% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing were higher for those living in Spanish Valley and Other, but this difference was not statistically significant. 

Comparing survey data from Moab over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score has declined each year. The community wellbeing score increased between 2020 and 2021, but declined 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 Moab. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 3.93, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.03, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.82, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.13, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.50, 2022 community wellbeing: 2.84

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 Pandemic has dominated the last couple of years. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or community wellbeing changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 51% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 23% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing had improved in that time. For community wellbeing, 74% of respondents indicated it had declined in the last year and 10% indicated it had improved. 

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Moab. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 19%; Declined slightly: 32%; No change: 26%; Improved slightly: 17%; Improved Substantially: 6%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Moab. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Moab changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 29%; Declined slightly: 45%; No change: 15%; Improved slightly: 8%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Moab 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, Moab was lowest in the cluster in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Moab was statistically significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster besides East Carbon in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of overall community wellbeing, Moab was significantly lower than all other cities except East Carbon and Price. 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 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 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 with Nature (74%), and Physical Health (68%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (95%), Physical Health (93%), Safety and Security (93%), and Leisure Time (90%). 

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 - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 62% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 38% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 70% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 30% rated as good or excellent; Catefory: Income - 62% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 38% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Moab. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 32% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 35% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 51% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 49% rated as important or very important; Category: Income - 22% rated as not at all important, slightly importatnt, or moderately importatnt while 78% 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 with Nature, Physical Health, Safety and Security, Mental Health, and Leisure Time were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Local Environmental Quality and Living Standards fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings.

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: Physical Health, Safety and Security, Leisure Time, Connection with Nature, and Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Income, Education, and Social Connections. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Living Standards and Local Environmental Quality.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Moab

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Moab residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Moab, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.1, 2021- 3.45, 2022- 3.0; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.95, 2022- 3.45; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 4.2, 2021- 4.3, 2022- 3.85, Category: Education- 2020- 3.0, 2021- 3.0, 2022- 3.0; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.65, 2022 3.8; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.45, 2022- 3.35; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.3, 2022- 3.15; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.8, 2022- 3.45, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.1; 2022- 3.2, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.95, 2021- 2.6, 2022- 2.75, Category: Income- 2020- 2.85, 2021- 3.2, 2022- 2.95.

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 with Nature for 31% of respondents and in Leisure Time for 27% 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- 69% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 28% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 56% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 38% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 55% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 45% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 39% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 53% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 23% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 50% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 27% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 32% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 63% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 58% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 12% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 57% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 31% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 59% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 14% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 56% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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 Moab 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 Moab

  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  + 
vs 40-59		    + 
    + 
vs Under $75,000		  
Wellbeing in Moab  + 
vs 40-59		    + 
  + 
  + 

  + 
Connection with Nature  + 
vs 40-59		        + 
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities        + 
    
Education  + 
    + 
      
Leisure Time + 
   +   + 
vs Other		  + 
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  + 
Living Standards + 
   + 
    + 
  
Local Environmental Quality          + 
vs Under $75,000		  
Mental Health  + 
        + 
vs Under $75,000		  
Physical Health      -      + 
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Safety & Security  + 
vs 40-59		    + 
    + 
vs Under $75,000		  
Social Connections  + 
vs 40-59		          
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest
Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature      + 
    + 
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities          - 
vs Under
$75,000 and $100,000-$149,999		  
Education            
Leisure Time  - 
vs 18-39		          
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality      + 
  - 
vs A/A/NP		  + 
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health            
Safety and Security            
Social Connections             
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection 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 3.0. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.13.

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: 7% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 18% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% 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: 11% of respondents; 2: 28% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 19% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents

Respondents with at least a 4-year college degree reported higher levels of community connection than those without a college degree. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those age 40-59. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

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 Moab take action? + 
vs 40-59 		          
Do you feel connected to your community? + 
vs 40-59 

   + 
 		      

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Moab. Of the 33 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 64% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 62 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 84% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 16% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 57 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 37 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 46% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% 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 was in the lower half on perceived community action and 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 (89%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (88%) and gardening (79%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Moab. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 88% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 89% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 45% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 73% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 79% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 29% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 67% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 54% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Moab respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters and recreating in city parks were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Watching or reading nature-related programs or publications was positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

All activities above except for motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters and walking a pet in the city were 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, red rock, and trails were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Extractive industry and commercial development were viewed as negative influences on wellbeing to a majority of the respondents.

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 - 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, 6% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 66% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 67% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 23% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 57% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 13% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 12% 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 (66%). On the pace of economic development, 65% indicated it was too fast, 22% too slow, and 5% just right.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Moab. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Moab? Data – 4% of respondents rated too slow; 16% of respondents rated just right; 66% of respondents rated too fast; 14% 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 – 22% of respondents rated too slow; 5% of respondents rated just right; 65% of respondents rated too fast; 8% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Moab have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. There hasn't been much change in perceptions of population growth. There have been some changes related to the pace of economic development with a rise in those who felt it was too fast in 2021, but it dropped back down to 65% in 2022, though still indicating that the majority of respondents felt it was too fast. 

Type: Line Title: Moab Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 4% rated too slow, 24% rated just right, 64% rated too fast 2021: 6% rated too slow, 20% rated just right, 62% rated too fast 2022: 4% rated too slow, 16% rated just right, 66% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Moab Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 24% rated too slow, 8% rated just right, 62% rated too fast 2021: 12% rated too slow, 8% rated just right, 73% rated too fast 2022: 22% rated too slow, 5% rated just right, 65% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Moab 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.

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. Affordable Housing, Water Supply, and Access to Public Land were the top three concerns with at least 80% 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: 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- 9% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 91% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% 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- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 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 Mental Health Care - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 58 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Noise, UTVs, ATVs (11) Bike lanes Environmental degradation
Tourism, hotels (9) Inclusivity Walking in spv
Housing options (8) Wealth gap Giving indigenous land back
Politics, government (4) Wildfire COVID
Overdevelopment (3) Community exodus Access to skilled laborers
Taxes (2) Traffic Retirement
People camping in non-designated areas Childcare Transit
Large trucks on main street Inflation Infrastructure

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Moab and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Moab. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, a large number of residents valued the social climate of Moab, especially in regards to feeling “a sense of community” and friends/family. Moab residents also valued the nature and beauty as well as recreational opportunities (especially the trails and access to public lands). The additional comments section included many concerns about housing, mainly all in favor for more/more affordable housing. In addition, the residents also commented on recreation and tourism causing noise pollution and diverting needed resources and affecting their wellbeing. There were also comments about city image and transportation (mainly traffic and noise from UTVs). 

On This Page