Moab 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

Moab 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 city residents and to provide information to city 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 Moab survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In April 2026, Moab City advertised the survey for residents. All city 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?

  • 198 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The Moab 2022 survey had 208 responses, the Moab 2021 survey had 443 responses, and the Moab 2020 survey had 354 responses.
  • The adult population of Moab was estimated at 4,140, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 198 survey responses in 2026 represent 4.8% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.8%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Moab 93.4%
Part Time Residents of Moab 6.6%
Length of Residency — Range 0.3-75 years
Length of Residency — Average 20.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 16 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 22.2%
City Area Percent
Castle Valley 2.5%
Moab City 61.6%
Other 9.6%
Spanish Valley 26.3%

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 Moab. People who have at least a 4-year college degree or are married were overrepresented, while those who are age 18-29, are adult males, do not have a college degree, have an income under $25,000, are Hispanic or Latino, or have children under 18 in their household were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Moab 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 23%, UWS: 6%; Age 30-39: ACS: 20%, UWS: 19%; Age 40-49: ACS: 16%, UWS: 18%; Age 50-59: ACS: 11%, UWS: 20%; Age 60-69: ACS: 16%, UWS: 23%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 15%, UWS: 15%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 23%, UWS: 6%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 17%, UWS: 18%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 19%, UWS: 19%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 8%, UWS: 17%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 21%, UWS: 29%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 12%, UWS: 11%; Adult Female: ACS: 50%, UWS: 63%; Adult Male: ACS: 50%, UWS: 35%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 2%; Employed: ACS: 68%, UWS: 76%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 2%, UWS: 1%; Other: ACS: 30%, UWS: 23%; No College Degree: ACS: 61%, UWS: 36%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 39%, UWS: 64%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 40%, UWS: 29%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 60%, UWS: 71%; Married: ACS: 41%, UWS: 65%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 31%, UWS: 15%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 7%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 26%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 19%, UWS: 3%; Nonwhite: ACS: 21%, UWS: 9%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 7%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 20%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 73%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Moab

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Moab. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Moab was 3.81 with 68% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Moab was 3.12 with 38% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Moab. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 25% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Moab. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Moab? Data — 1 Poor: 5% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 4% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Moab over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that from 2022 to 2026, both the average personal wellbeing score and the average community wellbeing score improved. Note that the number of respondents differed between years, and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Moab. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2020: 3.03; Community Wellbeing 2021: 3.13; Community Wellbeing 2022: 2.84; Community Wellbeing 2026: 3.12; Personal Wellbeing 2020: 3.93; Personal Wellbeing 2021: 3.82; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.50; Personal Wellbeing 2026: 3.81

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. Moab 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, Moab was below the average overall personal wellbeing score and below 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 Moab

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 Moab were Safety and Security (78%), Physical Health (77%), Connection with Nature (73%), and Mental Health (72%). The most important wellbeing domains were Physical Health (98%), Mental Health (97%), Local Environmental Quality (91%), Safety and Security (91%), and Connection with Nature (91%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Moab. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 22% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 78% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 23% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 77% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 27% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 73% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 28% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 72% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Family Life - 37% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 63% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Living Standards - 39% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 61% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 40% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 60% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 47% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 53% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 48% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 52% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 50% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 50% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 69% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 31% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 69% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 31% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Moab. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Physical 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: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 97% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 9% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 91% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 9% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 91% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Safety and Security - 9% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 91% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Leisure Time -11% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 89% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Living Standards -17% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 83% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Family Life -32% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 68% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections -32% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 68% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -41% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 59% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -48% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 52% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Transportation -53% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 47% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Moab

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Moab residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Since 2022, most domain ratings increased, except for Connection with Nature and Education which remained nearly the same.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Moab. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2020: 4.17; Connection with Nature 2021: 4.24; Connection with Nature 2022: 3.94; Connection with Nature 2026: 3.97; Cultural Opportunities 2020: 2.94; Cultural Opportunities 2021: 2.62; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 2.76; Cultural Opportunities 2026: 2.98; Education 2020: 2.98; Education 2021: 3.03; Education 2022: 2.98; Education 2026: 2.99; Family Life 2026: 3.64; Leisure Time 2020: 3.52; Leisure Time 2021: 3.79; Leisure Time 2022: 3.45; Leisure Time 2026: 3.61; Living Standards 2020: 3.13; Living Standards 2021: 3.46; Living Standards 2022: 3.02; Living Standards 2026: 3.61; Local Environmental Quality 2020: 3.38; Local Environmental Quality 2021: 3.28; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 3.17; Local Environmental Quality 2026: 3.49; Mental Health 2020: 3.51; Mental Health 2021: 3.42; Mental Health 2022: 3.35; Mental Health 2026: 3.88; Physical Health 2020: 3.73; Physical Health 2021: 3.67; Physical Health 2022: 3.80; Physical Health 2026: 3.94; Safety and Security 2020: 3.91; Safety and Security 2021: 3.94; Safety and Security 2022: 3.47; Safety and Security 2026: 4.07; Social Connections 2020: 3.49; Social Connections 2021: 3.13; Social Connections 2022: 3.21; Social Connections 2026: 3.43; Transportation 2026: 3.54

Wellbeing Matrix for Moab

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

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

Community Connection in Moab

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Moab on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.38.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Moab. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Moab as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 6% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 21% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Moab over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score improved between 2022 and 2026.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Moab. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2020: 3.32; 2021: 3.27; 2022: 3.00; 2026: 3.38

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing as well as mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Moab. Data — Of the 11 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 2, 91% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 9% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 39 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 72% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 82 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 52% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 38 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 29% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Moab. Data — Of the 12 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 2, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 32 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 59% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 80 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 56% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 44 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 39% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 61% 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. Moab ranked 16 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 Moab

Survey participants were asked how well Moab 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 (38%). For those expressing an opinion, respondents were split between opinions that they were somewhat (30%) or quite well (24%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Moab. Subtitle: How well does Moab include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 2% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 30% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 24% of respondents; 4 Fully: 5% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 38% 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 Using trails in or near your city (88%) and Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (87%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Moab. Subtitle: How often have you participated in any of the following activities over the past year? Data — Category: Using trails in or near your city - 12% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 88% 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 city - 13% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 87% 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 - 18% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 82% 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 - 25% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 75% 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 - 35% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 65% 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 city - 36% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 64% 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 - 62% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 38% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: City recreation programs - 65% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 35% 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 - 68% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 32% 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 all activities except participation in non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah and participation in motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah.

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 Moab respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Moab. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 12% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 88% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 42% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 58% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 63% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 37% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 88% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 12% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Moab indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (60%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was too fast (48%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Moab. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Moab? Data — Too Slow: 5% of respondents; Just Right: 24% of respondents; Too Fast: 60% of respondents; No Opinion: 11% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Moab. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Moab? Data — Too Slow: 33% of respondents; Just Right: 13% of respondents; Too Fast: 48% of respondents; No Opinion: 6% of respondents

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

Line Graph. Title: Moab Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 4% rated it too slow, 24% just right, and 64% too fast; 2021: 6% rated it too slow, 20% just right, and 62% too fast; 2022: 4% rated it too slow, 16% just right, and 66% too fast; 2026: 5% rated it too slow, 24% just right, and 60% too fast

Line Graph. Title: Moab Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 24% rated it too slow, 8% just right, and 62% too fast; 2021: 12% rated it too slow, 8% just right, and 73% too fast; 2022: 22% rated it too slow, 5% just right, and 65% too fast; 2026: 33% rated it too slow, 13% just right, and 48% too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Moab 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 a desire for more affordable and sustainable economic development, emphasizing the need to diversify the economy beyond tourism-based industries. Many valued local businesses and services that cater to residents’ needs, rather than just catering to tourists. Some expressed concern about the strain of rapid growth on resources and open spaces, suggesting a need to slow down development and prioritize quality of life over profit-driven initiatives. Additionally, there was a strong desire for more job opportunities and higher wages to support local families, rather than relying solely on tourism-driven employment.

Cost of Living in Moab

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Moab. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (79%) and Housing (51%). Note that a high percentage (80%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Moab. 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 - 80% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 79% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 21% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 7% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 51% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 49% 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, 45% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 55% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Food - 1% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 43% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 57% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Utilities - 6% 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 - 15% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 25% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 75% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Moab

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Moab. The most problematic barriers were Cost (64%) and Travel time (51%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Moab. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 36% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 64% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 49% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 51% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 73% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 27% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 75% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 25% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 81% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 19% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 83% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 17% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 91% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 9% 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 Moab

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Moab. Water Supply (90%), Traffic (80%), and Wildfire (80%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about substance use (-35%), access to mental health care (-26%), suicide (-25%), public safety (-17%), social and emotional support (-15%), access to healthy/quality food (-14%), affordable housing (-14%), air quality (-14%), and opportunities for youth (-12%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Moab. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Moab, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Water Supply - 10% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 90% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 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 - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% 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: Substance Use - 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 77% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 23% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 80% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 20% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city 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 Moab

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Moab. 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 expressed a deep appreciation for Moab’s natural beauty and surrounding public lands, which provide endless opportunities for outdoor recreation and connection with nature. Many comments highlighted the sense of community that exists in Moab, noting the strong social bonds between residents and the numerous community events throughout the year. The proximity to these natural areas and recreational spaces was also seen as a significant benefit, allowing residents to easily access and enjoy the outdoors. Additionally, respondents valued the town’s small-town feel, quiet atmosphere, and lack of congestion, which allows for a more relaxed pace of life.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Moab includes: people, small town, nature, beautiful, public lands, beauty, outdoors, trails, recreation, moab, natural, and quiet.

Local Environmental Quality in Moab

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Moab. Moab respondents expressed concern about the environment, highlighting issues with air and water quality, noise pollution from off-road vehicles, and overdevelopment that threatens natural spaces and scenic views. Many noted the impact of tourism on the area’s character and stress levels, particularly during peak seasons. Others emphasized the need for better infrastructure, including sidewalks, bike lanes, and pedestrian-friendly transportation options. The pace of development was seen as unsustainable, with concerns about the depletion of water resources and potential harm to public lands.

Improving Wellbeing in Moab

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Moab. Respondents emphasized the need for traffic control and reduction, with many expressing frustration with the influx of tourists and noise pollution caused by off-highway vehicles. They also highlighted the importance of balancing tourism with local needs, suggesting that the community focus on supporting full-time residents rather than solely catering to visitors. Additionally, some residents wanted more affordable housing options, local shopping opportunities, and services, while others emphasized the need for improved public transportation and bike paths.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Moab. Many comments highlighted concerns about Moab’s growth and development, particularly with regards to tourism and its impact on the local community. Respondents expressed frustration with the increasing noise pollution from recreational vehicles and the feeling of being priced out of their own town due to rising housing costs and lack of affordable options. Others noted the strain on infrastructure and services, emphasizing the need for more attention to be paid to the needs of long-time locals rather than just catering to tourists. Additionally, several comments emphasized the importance of preserving the town’s natural beauty and protected lands, while also promoting a sense of community and inclusivity among residents.

On This Page