Manila 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

Manila 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 Manila survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In April 2026, Manila 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?

  • 53 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The adult population of Manila was estimated at 260, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 53 survey responses in 2026 represent 20.4% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 12.03%. 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 Manila 88.7%
Part Time Residents of Manila 11.3%
Length of Residency — Range 0.8-56 years
Length of Residency — Average 13.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 10 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 30.2%
City Area Percent
Manila 53.8%
Surrounding Area 46.2%

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 Manila. People who are age 60-69, are adult females, or are married were overrepresented, while those who are age 40-49, are adult males, or have an income $25,000 to $49,999 were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Manila 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 12%, UWS: 0%; Age 30-39: ACS: 9%, UWS: 13%; Age 40-49: ACS: 33%, UWS: 6%; Age 50-59: ACS: 13%, UWS: 21%; Age 60-69: ACS: 18%, UWS: 40%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 15%, UWS: 19%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 4%, UWS: 0%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 28%, UWS: 9%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 18%, UWS: 16%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 13%, UWS: 23%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 29%, UWS: 30%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 9%, UWS: 21%; Adult Female: ACS: 42%, UWS: 62%; Adult Male: ACS: 58%, UWS: 36%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 2%; Employed: ACS: 59%, UWS: 51%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 2%, UWS: 2%; Other: ACS: 39%, UWS: 47%; No College Degree: ACS: 81%, UWS: 66%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 19%, UWS: 34%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 18%, UWS: 6%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 82%, UWS: 94%; Married: ACS: 53%, UWS: 85%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 32%, UWS: 30%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 13%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 26%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 0%, UWS: 2%; Nonwhite: ACS: 6%, UWS: 4%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 51%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 23%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 26%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Manila

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Manila. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Manila was 4.13 with 79% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Manila was 3.51 with 51% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Manila. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 0% of respondents; 3: 21% of respondents; 4: 45% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 34% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Manila. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Manila? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 38% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 13% of respondents

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. Manila 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, Manila was slightly above the average overall personal wellbeing score and close to 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 Manila

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 Manila were Family Life (90%), Mental Health (88%), and Connection with Nature (86%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (100%), Living Standards (96%), Physical Health (94%), and Local Environmental Quality (94%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Manila. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 10% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 90% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 12% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 88% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 14% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 86% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 16% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 84% 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: Leisure Time - 22% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 78% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 22% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 78% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 24% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 76% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 28% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 72% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 44% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 56% 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; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 62% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 38% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Manila. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 0% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 100% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Living Standards - 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: Physical Health - 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: Family Life - 8% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 92% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Leisure Time - 8% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 92% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Mental Health - 8% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 92% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 10% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 90% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections - 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: Transportation - 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: Education - 37% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 63% 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

Wellbeing Matrix for Manila

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Manila. Connection with Nature, Family Life, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Local Environmental Quality, Mental Health, and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Physical Health fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings.

Scatterplot. Title: Manila 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, Family Life, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Local Environmental Quality, Mental Health, and Safety and Security; High rating, lower importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Transportation; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Education, and Social Connections; Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health

Community Connection in Manila

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Manila on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.35.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Manila. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Manila as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 42% of respondents; 4: 17% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 23% of respondents

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing, and to some extent between community connection and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Manila. Data — Of the 9 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 2, 3, 89% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 21 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 18 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing 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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Manila. Data — Of the 6 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 2, 3, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 19 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 68% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 22 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 50% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% 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. Manila ranked 29 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 Manila

Survey participants were asked how well Manila included individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities. The largest proportion of respondents indicated they had no opinion or that the question was not relevant (29%). For those expressing an opinion, respondents were split between opinions that they were somewhat (29%) or quite well (25%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Manila. Subtitle: How well does Manila include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 8% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 29% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 25% of respondents; 4 Fully: 8% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 29% 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 Gardening at home (74%), Walking or biking in your neighborhood or town (74%), and Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah (72%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Manila. Subtitle: How often have you participated in any of the following activities over the past year? Data — Category: Gardening at home - 26% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 74% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Walking or biking in your neighborhood or town - 26% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 74% 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 - 28% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 72% 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 - 38% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 62% 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 - 46% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 54% 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 - 52% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 48% 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 - 54% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 46% 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 - 54% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 46% 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 - 58% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 42% 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 town or county recreation programs and 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 Manila respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Manila. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 16% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 84% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 32% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 68% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 46% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 54% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 86% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 14% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The largest proportion of respondents in Manila indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (38%). For the pace of economic development, the majority of respondents indicated that it was too slow (51%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Manila. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Manila? Data — Too Slow: 26% of respondents; Just Right: 28% of respondents; Too Fast: 38% of respondents; No Opinion: 9% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Manila. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Manila? Data — Too Slow: 51% of respondents; Just Right: 32% of respondents; Too Fast: 15% of respondents; No Opinion: 2% of respondents

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Manila 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 expressed wanting more job opportunities, particularly those that support locals. They also mentioned the need for affordable housing options to accommodate growing populations. Additionally, respondents highlighted the importance of infrastructure development, including water and sewer systems, as well as the desire for bringing a bank into the community.

Cost of Living in Manila

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Manila. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (60%), and Healthcare (30%). Note that a high percentage (89%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Manila. 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 - 89% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 60% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 40% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Healthcare - 6% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 30% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 70% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 4% 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: Food - 0% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 28% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 72% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Utilities - 0% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 28% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 72% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 21% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 22% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 78% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Manila

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Manila. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (57%) and Cost (45%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Manila. 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 - 55% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 45% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 76% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 24% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 78% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 22% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 86% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 14% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 86% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 14% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 88% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 12% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 98% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 2% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Concerns in Manila

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Manila. Water Supply (83%), Access to Health Care (72%), and Employment Opportunities (70%) were the top concerns.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Manila. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Manila, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Water Supply - 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 Health Care - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 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 - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Use - 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 74% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 26% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 77% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 23% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 80% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 20% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 83% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 17% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 87% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 13% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 91% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 9% 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 Manila

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Manila. 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 appreciated the peaceful and quiet nature of the community, with many respondents valuing the small-town feel and sense of seclusion it provides. Many mentioned how important it is to have access to natural amenities, such as lakes and mountains. Additionally, comments mentioned the close-knit community and friendly atmosphere, and that the social connections within the community are meaningful.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Manila includes: quiet, small town, community, people, access, clean air, beautiful, close, feel, living, and peace.

Local Environmental Quality in Manila

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Manila. Comments highlighted concerns about water quality and availability, with many expressing worry about the potential impacts of draining Flaming Gorge on local water supplies. Some respondents also mentioned the importance of preserving green spaces and parks, and a few others mentioned a desire to bring in a recycling service to Manila.

Improving Wellbeing in Manila

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Manila. Respondents comments suggested they would like improved infrastructure, such as better transportation options and road maintenance. Additionally, respondents expressed concerns about the environment, specifically preserving green spaces and addressing drainage issues. Some also emphasized the need for better health care services, particularly affordable and accessible medical facilities, as well as job opportunities and social connections.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Manila. Many respondents appreciated their city, with some commenting on its potential for greatness and others noting that it’s a nice place to live. However, others mentioned challenges such as high fuel costs and limited shopping opportunities, which can impact daily life and recreational activities. Additionally, there were concerns about the lack of services for elderly residents, including hospice care, and worries about substance abuse in the area.

On This Page