Bluff Wellbeing Survey Findings 2026

By Dr. Courtney Flint, Nicolas Holden, and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Bluff is one of 57 cities and towns participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2026. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of town residents and to provide information to town leaders to inform general planning processes. Additional analysis is underway, and this report may be updated over time.

We are grateful to all those who took the survey and to our city partners who helped make this possible. A special thank you goes to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the following cities for funding this project: Cedar City, Delta, Heber, La Verkin, South Weber, Vernal, West Bountiful, and West Valley City. We also acknowledge support from the Institute for Disability Research, Policy & Practice (IDRPP).

This report describes findings from the 2026 Bluff survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In March 2026, Bluff Town advertised the survey for residents. All town residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey. Cities and towns generally advertised the survey through newsletters, social media, emails, or other various efforts.

How many people responded?

  • 54 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The Bluff 2024 survey had 65 responses and the Bluff 2022 survey had 83 responses.
  • The adult population of Bluff was estimated at 216, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 54 survey responses in 2026 represent 25.0% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 11.58%. Due to the low number of respondents and the high conservative margin of error, caution should be used when interpreting these survey results.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Bluff 83.3%
Part Time Residents of Bluff 16.7%
Length of Residency — Range 1-52 years
Length of Residency — Average 18.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 16.5 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 13.0%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2020-2024 American Community Survey. In the graph below, gray bars indicate differences between the American Community Survey estimates and the Utah Wellbeing Project surveys. The wider the gray bars, the larger the differences. Also note that estimates for religious affiliation, adult non-conforming or non-binary gender, disability, and chronic conditions are unavailable from the census data. There can also be a variable margin of error in the American Community Survey estimates, and caution should be used when comparing estimates. Not all respondents provided demographic information. As the graph shows, 2026 survey respondents were not fully representative of Bluff. People who are age 70 or over or have at least a 4-year college degree were overrepresented, while those who are age 60-69 or do not have a college degree were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Bluff 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 0%, UWS: 0%; Age 30-39: ACS: 6%, UWS: 9%; Age 40-49: ACS: 8%, UWS: 6%; Age 50-59: ACS: 6%, UWS: 15%; Age 60-69: ACS: 44%, UWS: 19%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 35%, UWS: 51%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 2%, UWS: 2%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 29%, UWS: 27%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 30%, UWS: 20%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 17%, UWS: 23%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 6%, UWS: 11%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 15%, UWS: 16%; Adult Female: ACS: 65%, UWS: 74%; Adult Male: ACS: 35%, UWS: 26%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 0%; Employed: ACS: 33%, UWS: 45%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 0%, UWS: 0%; Other: ACS: 67%, UWS: 55%; No College Degree: ACS: 29%, UWS: 11%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 71%, UWS: 89%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 20%, UWS: 13%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 80%, UWS: 87%; Married: ACS: 67%, UWS: 66%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 9%, UWS: 9%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 9%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 17%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 0%, UWS: 0%; Nonwhite: ACS: 21%, UWS: 9%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 0%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 28%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 72%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Bluff

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Bluff. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Bluff was 3.98 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Bluff was 3.80 with 63% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Bluff. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 54% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 26% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Bluff. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Bluff? Data — 1 Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Bluff over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that from 2024 to 2026, both the average personal wellbeing score and the average community wellbeing score declined. 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 Bluff. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.84; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.88; Community Wellbeing 2026: 3.80; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.96; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 4.20; Personal Wellbeing 2026: 3.98

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns clusters cities and towns into five different categories based on size and growth rates. We utilize these clusters in our analysis. Bluff is classified as a Rural Hub/Resort Community. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. Each cluster average represents the mean of the city and town means within each cluster.

Within the Rural city cluster, Bluff was close to the average overall personal wellbeing score and above the average overall community wellbeing score.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.73; Ogden Average Score 3.80; West Jordan Average Score 4.00; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Sandy Average Score 4.23; South Jordan Average Score 4.25; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.66; Logan Average Score 3.79; Cedar City Average Score 3.80; Woods Cross Average Score 4.03; Murray Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.07; South Ogden Average Score 4.16; West Bountiful Average Score 4.20; Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Lindon Average Score 4.23; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.27; Alpine Average Score 4.35; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.35; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Lehi Average Score 3.88; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.92; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.95; Grantsville Average Score 3.97; Mapleton Average Score 4.00; Wellsville Average Score 4.04; Enoch Average Score 4.08; Herriman Average Score 4.08; Bluffdale Average Score 4.16; Kamas Average Score 4.19; Kaysville Average Score 4.19; South Weber Average Score 4.20; Providence Average Score 4.26; Uintah City Average Score 4.34; Ivins Average Score 4.45; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 3.67; Tremonton Average Score 3.72; Vernal Average Score 3.75; Blanding Average Score 3.78; Moab Average Score 3.81; Bluff Average Score 3.98; Richfield Average Score 3.99; Nephi Average Score 4.01; Manila Average Score 4.13; Heber Average Score 4.19; Morgan Average Score 4.23; Springdale Average Score 4.27; Midway Average Score 4.38; Alta Average Score 4.44; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Delta Average Score 3.77; Ferron Average Score 3.89; Stockton Average Score 3.92; Orangeville Average Score 3.96; La Verkin Average Score 3.97; Lake Point Average Score 4.13; Lewiston Average Score 4.22; Toquerville Average Score 4.24; Mayfield Average Score 4.27

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.19; West Valley City Average Score 3.22; West Jordan Average Score 3.53; Millcreek Average Score 3.81; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.06; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.06; Cedar City Average Score 3.23; Logan Average Score 3.42; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.71; Woods Cross Average Score 3.74; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.81; Murray Average Score 3.86; Bountiful Average Score 3.93; South Ogden Average Score 3.99; Alpine Average Score 4.04; West Bountiful Average Score 4.06; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.16; Lindon Average Score 4.24; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Grantsville Average Score 3.08; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.29; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.38; Kamas Average Score 3.50; Lehi Average Score 3.56; Herriman Average Score 3.66; Enoch Average Score 3.69; Mapleton Average Score 3.71; South Weber Average Score 3.75; Bluffdale Average Score 3.78; Wellsville Average Score 3.93; Kaysville Average Score 3.95; Ivins Average Score 4.00; Providence Average Score 4.03; Uintah City Average Score 4.13; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 2.92; Tremonton Average Score 2.94; Moab Average Score 3.12; Vernal Average Score 3.21; Blanding Average Score 3.33; Heber Average Score 3.51; Manila Average Score 3.51; Nephi Average Score 3.51; Richfield Average Score 3.57; Springdale Average Score 3.71; Bluff Average Score 3.80; Morgan Average Score 3.89; Alta Average Score 4.15; Midway Average Score 4.24; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Stockton Average Score 3.30; Delta Average Score 3.35; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Lake Point Average Score 3.62; Orangeville Average Score 3.72; Ferron Average Score 3.76; Toquerville Average Score 3.83; Lewiston Average Score 3.99; Mayfield Average Score 4.08

Wellbeing Domains in Bluff

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. Survey respondents rated twelve domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. 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 highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Bluff were Connection with Nature (90%), Safety and Security (86%), and Living Standards (82%). The most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Connection with Nature (96%), and Physical Health (96%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Bluff. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Connection with Nature - 10% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 90% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 14% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 86% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Living Standards - 18% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 82% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 20% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 80% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 20% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 80% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 22% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 78% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 26% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 74% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 32% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 68% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Family Life - 36% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 64% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 39% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 61% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 40% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 60% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 56% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 44% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Bluff. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Mental Health - 2% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 98% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 4% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 96% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Physical Health - 4% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 96% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 6% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 94% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Safety and Security -15% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 85% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Living Standards -23% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 77% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Family Life -25% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 75% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Leisure Time -26% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 74% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections -27% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 73% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -43% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 57% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -47% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 53% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Transportation -48% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 52% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Bluff

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Bluff residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Since 2024, most domain ratings decreased, except for Transportation which increased, and Living Standards, Mental Health, and Education which remained nearly the same.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Bluff. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2022: 4.43; Connection with Nature 2024: 4.50; Connection with Nature 2026: 4.24; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 3.54; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 3.92; Cultural Opportunities 2026: 3.75; Education 2022: 3.71; Education 2024: 3.32; Education 2026: 3.36; Family Life 2024: 3.98; Family Life 2026: 3.76; Leisure Time 2022: 4.04; Leisure Time 2024: 4.14; Leisure Time 2026: 3.96; Living Standards 2022: 4.00; Living Standards 2024: 4.19; Living Standards 2026: 4.20; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 4.28; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 4.34; Local Environmental Quality 2026: 4.08; Mental Health 2022: 3.84; Mental Health 2024: 4.08; Mental Health 2026: 4.04; Physical Health 2022: 3.92; Physical Health 2024: 4.11; Physical Health 2026: 4.00; Safety and Security 2022: 4.28; Safety and Security 2024: 4.41; Safety and Security 2026: 4.32; Social Connections 2022: 3.81; Social Connections 2024: 4.08; Social Connections 2026: 3.80; Transportation 2024: 3.40; Transportation 2026: 3.72

Wellbeing Matrix for Bluff

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Bluff. Connection with Nature, Local Environmental Quality, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No Domains fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings.

Scatterplot. Title: Bluff Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: 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 domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Local Environmental Quality, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security; High rating, lower importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time and Living Standards; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Education, Family Life, Social Connections, and Transportation

Community Connection in Bluff

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Bluff on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.86.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Bluff. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Bluff as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 39% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Bluff over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score declined between 2024 and 2026.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Bluff. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2022: 3.77; 2024: 3.97; 2026: 3.86

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing, but no clear relationship was found between community connection and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Bluff. Data — Of the 10 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 2, 3, 40% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 28 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 39% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 61% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 13 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 23% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Bluff. Data — Of the 10 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 2, 3, 30% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 70% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 25 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 40% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 15 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 33% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

The graph below shows how Wellbeing Project cities and towns compare on feelings of community connection based on the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or a 5 on a 5-point scale from “1 Not at all” to “5 A great deal” connected to their city or town. Bluff ranked 1 out of the 57 cities that participated.

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 and 5 being a great deal. Data — City: Bluff 35% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 65% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Uintah City 39% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 61% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 40% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 60% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lindon 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alta 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Midway 45% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 55% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Morgan 46% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Murray 49% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 50% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kamas 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ogden 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ivins 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Moab 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mayfield 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wendover 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ferron 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Delta 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Springdale 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Richfield 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Orangeville 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Weber 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lewiston 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Heber 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Manila 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Nephi 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Enoch 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 61% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 39% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Sandy 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Toquerville 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kaysville 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Logan 64% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Vernal 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bluffdale 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Blanding 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Herriman 66% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Providence 67% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lake Point 68% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 69% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Woods Cross 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 71% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tooele 73% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 27% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Stockton 74% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lehi 75% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 76% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Eagle Mountain 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Grantsville 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5

Disability in Bluff

Survey participants were asked how well Bluff included individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities. For those expressing an opinion, respondents were split between opinions that they were quite well (35%), fully (27%), or somewhat (22%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Bluff. Subtitle: How well does Bluff include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 0% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 22% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 35% of respondents; 4 Fully: 27% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 16% of respondents

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they participated in various activities over the past year. The activities in which respondents most commonly participated at least sometimes (about once a month or more frequently) were Walking or biking in your neighborhood or town (86%), Using trails in or near your town (80%), and Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah (78%). 

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Bluff. Subtitle: How often have you participated in any of the following activities over the past year? Data — Category: Walking or biking in your neighborhood or town - 14% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 86% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Using trails in or near your town - 20% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 80% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 22% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 78% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Community events - 29% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 71% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Gardening at home - 29% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 71% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Town or county recreation programs - 53% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 47% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Buying food from a farmer's market - 56% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 44% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Recreating in parks in your town - 59% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 41% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 72% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 28% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week)

Higher levels of community connection correlated with more frequent participation in community events.

Wellbeing and Urban/Rural Settings

Respondents were asked to indicate how important spending time in the different settings were to their wellbeing. The most important setting for Bluff respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Bluff. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 10% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 90% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 35% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 65% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 71% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 29% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 98% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 2% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Bluff indicated that they felt the population growth was just right (54%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was just right (49%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Bluff. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Bluff? Data — Too Slow: 22% of respondents; Just Right: 54% of respondents; Too Fast: 8% of respondents; No Opinion: 16% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Bluff. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Bluff? Data — Too Slow: 29% of respondents; Just Right: 49% of respondents; Too Fast: 8% of respondents; No Opinion: 14% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Bluff have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys.

Line Graph. Title: Bluff Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2022: 18% rated it too slow, 55% just right, and 11% too fast; 2024: 25% rated it too slow, 54% just right, and 12% too fast; 2026: 22% rated it too slow, 54% just right, and 8% too fast

Line Graph. Title: Bluff Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2022: 32% rated it too slow, 41% just right, and 15% too fast; 2024: 37% rated it too slow, 46% just right, and 10% too fast; 2026: 29% rated it too slow, 49% just right, and 8% too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Bluff compared to other participating cities and towns in the Rural Hub/Resort Communities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Rural Hub/Resort Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Heber - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% just right, 89% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Midway - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 14% just right, 86% too fast, and 0% had no opinion; City: Tremonton - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 11% just right, 83% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Morgan - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 20% just right, 75% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Nephi - 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% just right, 71% too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Moab - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 60% too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Vernal - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 29% just right, 56% too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Richfield - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 45% just right, 46% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Manila - 26% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% just right, 38% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Springdale - 4% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% just right, 32% too fast, and 23% had no opinion; City: Alta - 9% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 45% just right, 23% too fast, and 23% had no opinion; City: Blanding - 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 51% just right, 17% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Wendover - 40% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% just right, 13% too fast, and 20% had no opinion; City: Bluff - 22% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 54% just right, 8% too fast, and 16% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Rural Hub/Resort Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Heber - 21% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 11% just right, 61% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Midway - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 39% just right, 55% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Springdale - 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% just right, 52% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Moab - 33% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 13% just right, 48% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Tremonton - 48% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 10% just right, 38% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Nephi - 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% just right, 37% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Morgan - 34% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 27% too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: Vernal - 37% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% just right, 23% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Alta - 17% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 43% just right, 22% too fast, and 17% had no opinion; City: Manila - 51% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% just right, 15% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Richfield - 49% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% just right, 10% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Bluff - 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 49% just right, 8% too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Blanding - 62% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 26% just right, 4% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Wendover - 73% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 17% just right, 3% too fast, and 7% had no opinion

Survey respondents were asked if there are any aspects of the local economy they would like to see changed in the next five years. Respondents highlighted the need for more local businesses and retail options, with some expressing a desire for unique, small-scale establishments that cater to community needs. They also emphasized the importance of supporting existing businesses through infrastructure development and job opportunities. Many comments noted the strain rapid growth is placing on resources and open space, leading to a call for better planning and governance. Additionally, respondents valued affordable housing options and expressed concerns about the impact of tourism on the local economy.

Cost of Living in Bluff

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Bluff. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (33%), Healthcare (29%), and Housing (24%). Note that a high percentage (88%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Bluff. Subtitle: How EASY or DIFFICULT is it for your household to COVER EXPENSES related to the following? Among respondents for whom each expense was relevant; 'Not relevant' shown separately. Data — Category: Childcare - 88% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 33% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 67% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Healthcare - 2% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 29% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 71% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 14% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 24% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 76% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 8% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 14% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 86% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Utilities - 4% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 11% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 89% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Food - 2% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 6% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 94% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Bluff

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Bluff. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (57%) and Cost (49%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Bluff. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Travel time - 43% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 57% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Cost - 51% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 49% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 80% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 20% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 82% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 18% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 82% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 18% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 84% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 16% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 84% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 16% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 96% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 4% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Concerns in Bluff

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Bluff. Climate Change (83%), Access to Healthy/Quality Food (81%), and Water Supply (79%) were the top concerns. Since 2024, moderate or major concern about public safety (-28%), social and emotional support (-26%), open space/green space (-23%), recreation opportunities (-18%), affordable housing (-17%), trails & paths (-13%), opportunities for youth (-13%), air quality (-11%), shopping opportunities (-11%), substance use (-11%), and access to health care (-11%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Bluff. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Bluff, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Climate Change - 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 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 Mental Health Care - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 70% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 30% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Use - 77% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 23% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with town leaders. General observations and themes are shared here. The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including the Llama 3 large language model, accessed locally through Ollama, and a machine learning classifier, in the analysis of open comments. These tools were used for initial topical coding and draft summaries of comments. All comments, codes, and summaries were reviewed and edited by the authors for accuracy and clarity.

What Respondents Value Most in Bluff

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Bluff. The most common words and phrases from all comments are included in the word cloud below. It is possible that negative or unrelated words may appear since these words have been taken out of context, and they may not indicate the respondent’s intended meaning.

Respondents highlighted the community’s natural beauty, peacefulness, and proximity to outdoor recreation. They also valued the social atmosphere, expressing appreciation for the tight-knit small-town feel and sense of community among residents. Many comments emphasized the importance of feeling safe and protected in their community, with some mentioning the lack of traffic and noise pollution.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Bluff includes: community, people, quiet, neighbors, access, town, public lands, beautiful, dark, opportunities, outdoor, safety, small, trails, and walk.

Local Environmental Quality in Bluff

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Bluff. Respondents felt strongly about uranium processing and transportation through Bluff. Respondents also expressed worries about the potential risks to water sources and air quality, as well as the safety of local communities. The presence of nuclear waste and its disposal also sparked concern, highlighting the need for emergency planning and guarantees regarding community involvement in decision-making processes.

Improving Wellbeing in Bluff

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Bluff. Respondents emphasized the importance of affordable housing and job opportunities for young people, as well as the need for improved infrastructure, including transportation and healthcare. Many expressed concerns about the town’s aging population and the lack of support services, such as elder care and memory care facilities. Additionally, respondents mentioned the need for increased community education and lifelong learning opportunities, as well as support services for childcare, senior living, and emergency services.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Bluff. While respondents appreciated Bluff’s unique qualities, such as its small-town charm and community spirit, they also expressed concerns about growth and development. Some noted that the town’s infrastructure and amenities are underdeveloped, while others worried about the impact of tourism on local life. Additionally, there was a sense of frustration with local government and the perceived difficulties in working together to address issues.

On This Page