Utah Statewide Wellbeing Survey Report

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing Survey project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents, and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning processes. Questions include rating and importance of ten different domains or categories of wellbeing, participation in recreation and nature-related activities, perspectives on local population growth and economic development, the influence of landscape features on wellbeing, concerns for the future, and an array of demographic characteristic questions. Some cities added additional questions to their survey, particularly regarding housing and city amenities.

How was the survey conducted?

In early 2022, 33 cities participated in the Utah Wellbeing Survey. The survey for each city was available online through Qualtrics for at least three weeks. Each participating city advertised the survey via social media, newsletters, utility bills, websites, flyers, local news media or other local mechanisms. All residents in the participating cities age 18+ were encouraged to take the survey.

How many people responded?

A total of 9,947 completed surveys were recorded during this 2022 effort, bringing the total number of surveys completed for the Utah Wellbeing Project since 2019 up to 24,356.

Additional Information

Reports summarizing city-specific results from the survey may be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website. This information may help cities refine their messaging with residents on key issues, affirm existing plans, support future planning, and have practical implications for spending and providing services.

This project benefits from the partnership with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which is helping cities envision ways to use the findings from the wellbeing survey to inform their general planning processes.

Survey Cities and Responses

This effort builds upon previous survey efforts in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The map below highlights the cities participating in the survey project over time. The surveyed cities fall into three combined clusters according to the Utah League of Cities and Towns. The varying levels of responses correspond to confidence intervals from 3.24 to 14.27%.

Note: Monticello and Wellington also participated in the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys. However, too few responses were collected for them to be included in the comparative analysis.

map with 2022 study sites

City Clusters for Surveyed Cities and Number of 2022 Survey Responses

Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class & Established/Mid-Sized Cities

Bountiful (270)
Cottonwood Heights (227)
Draper (888)
Layton (319)
Logan (476)
Midvale (52)
Millcreek (274)
Sandy (809)
South Jordan (467)
Tooele (322)
West Jordan (672)



Rapid Growth Cities

Herriman (136)
Highland (187)
Hyde Park (448)
Lehi (245)
Nibley (457)
North Logan (299)
Santaquin (50)
Saratoga Springs (109)
Spanish Fork (595)
Vineyard (418)



Rural Hub/Resort & Traditional Rural Communities

Beaver (131)
Blanding (207)
Bluff (83)
Delta (77)
East Carbon (131)
Ephraim (106)
Helper (46)
Moab (208)
Nephi (250)
Park City (390)
Price (261)
Tremonton (418)

Survey Respondent Characteristics

The survey respondents come from 33 cities in Utah. They were not selected to be fully representative of the state of Utah. Nevertheless, they do provide insights into statewide experiences of wellbeing and beyond. The table below compares the demographic characteristics of the survey respondents from all 33 cities with the Utah census information. People age 18-29, males, Hispanics/Latinos, nonwhites and those with household incomes under $25,000 were underrepresented in the survey sample. People with a college degree, those who are married, those with household incomes over $150,000, and those who own their home were overrepresented in the survey sample. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. 

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Utah


Demographic Characteristics		 Statewide Wellbeing Survey
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2022
9947 Respondents 
Age 18-29 8.0% 26.9%
Age 30-39 22.7% 20.3%
Age 40-49 25.0% 16.9%
Age 50-59 17.7% 13.6%
Age 60-69 15.5% 12.0%
Age 70 or over 11.0% 10.3%
Adult Female 64.3% 50.1%
Adult Male 35.0% 49.9%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 0.7% NA
No college degree 38.0% 65.3%
College degree (4-year) 62.0% 34.7%
Median household income NA $74,197
Income under $25,000 3.6% 12.4%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 9.8% 19.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 14.8% 19.2%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 18.1% 15.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 27.5% 19.2%
Income $150,000 or over 26.2% 14.7%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 56.2% NA
Other religion 17.7% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 26.2% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.8% 14.7%
White 94.3% 85.2%
Nonwhite 5.7% 14.8%
Married 82.2% 55.8%
Children under 18 in household 49.5% 39.9%
Employed 66.5% 66.1%
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 2.5%
Other 32.9% 31.2%
Own home/Owner occupied 89.7% 70.5%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 10.3% 29.5%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Cities

The average overall personal wellbeing score for all surveyed Utahns was 4.13 on a scale from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent). The average overall community wellbeing score for all surveyed Utahns was 3.65. The figures below show the city scores for overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing within their cluster type. Scores for overall personal and community wellbeing were lower for Rural, Rural Hub and Resort Cities (average 3.94 and 3.55) than for Rapid Growth Cities (average 4.03 and 3.65) and Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class and Established/Mid-sized Cities (average 4.06 and 3.60). These scores have been weighted by population and sample size, but not by demographics.

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

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

Wellbeing Domains

The survey asked respondents to rate their wellbeing for ten domains and indicate the importance of these domains to their overall wellbeing. The matrix graph below shows the relationship between the ratings and the importance of the ten wellbeing domains for the combined and unweighted statewide data. These variables were measured on 5-point scales. For all Utahns surveyed in 2022, the highest rated domains were Living Standards, Safety and Security, and Education. The most important domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, and Physical Health. No domains fell in the “red zone” quadrant for higher importance and lower than average ratings, however, Local Environmental Quality, Leisure Time, and Physical Health approached this zone. The city matrix graphs varied considerably, and the domain scores also varied across demographic groups. This graph has not been weighted by population, sample size or demographics.

Scatterplot. Title: Utah Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Mental and Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time, Social Connections, Local Environmental Quality, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: None.

Table 2
Red Zone Domains for Study Cities (Domains with High Importance Scores and Lower Ratings)

Physical Health


 Local Environmental Quality

 Mental Health

 Living Standards Leisure Time Safety and Security Education None

Beaver

Blanding

Bluff

Delta

East Carbon

Ephraim

Helper

Highland

Hyde Park

Nibley

North Logan

Santaquin

South Jordan

Spanish Fork 

Cottonwood Heights

East Carbon

Layton

Millcreek

Moab

Park City

Blanding

Bluff

Delta

Ephraim

Helper

North Logan

Park City

South Jordan 

Blanding

Moab

Price

Herriman

Price

Sanatquin		 East Carbon

Midvale

Millcreek		 Beaver

Blanding

Delta

Nephi 

Bountiful

Draper

Lehi

Logan

Sandy

Saratoga Springs

Tooele

Tremonton

Vineyard

West Jordan 

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

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

Table 3
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Utah

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less Urban  Children in Household  Married
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +   + + +   –
vs RG
+
vs Rural
   +
Wellbeing in Beaver +   +  + + + –
vs RG
+
vs Rural		 –  +
Connection with Nature +   +   +   –  –   
Cultural Opportunities +   +  + +     –  +
Education + + + + +   –
vs RG
+
vs Rural		 –  +
Leisure Time +   + + +   – vs RG  –  +
Living Standards +   + + + + –
vs RG
+
vs Rural		   +
Local Environmental Quality + –  + + + + –     
Mental Health + –  + +  +   – vs RG    +
Physical Health +     +   +        
Safety & Security +   + +  + + –  –  +
Social Connections + + +  +  + –  – vs RG    +
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less Urban  Children in Household  Married
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature + vs 18-39  + + –  + vs $75,000- $99,999   – vs Rural  –   
Cultural Opportunities + + + –  –  vs Under $75,000   – vs RG     
Education   + + +   –  + vs Rural + +
Leisure Time –      –  +   – vs Rural –  +
Living Standards   +   + vs A/A/NRP +   – vs RG    
Local Environmental Quality + + + –  + vs Under $75,000- $99,999     –   
Mental Health +  +  
 +    +     + vs Rural    
Physical Health +  +  +    +  +    –  + 
Safety and Security +

 +
   +
 + vs Under $75,000- $99,999   + vs Rural
 + +
Social Connections + + + + vs A/A/NRP +    –     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference
Urban= Cities of the 1st and 2nd class 
RG= Rapid Growth Cities 

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents in each participating city were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (83%) and recreating in parks in the city (78%) were the most common activities for all respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (76%) and gardening (75%). 

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Utah. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 76% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 83% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 39% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 78% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 75% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 40% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 56% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 53% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

Community Connectedness

The survey asked, “In [city], to what degree do you feel connected to your community?” and ‘In [city], to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities” on 5-point scales. Community connectedness and perceptions of local action were higher for respondents from the Traditional Rural, Rural Hub, and Resort Cities (3.31 and 3.44 respectively) than Rapid Growth Cities (2.91 and 3.03) and Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class and Established/Mid-Sized Cities (2.91 and 2.93).

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; East Carbon 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Across the state, those with higher levels of community connectedness reported higher levels of personal wellbeing. This relationship has not been weighted by city population, city sample proportion, or demographic variables.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Utah. Of the 52 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 281 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 2, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 1405 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 84% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 16% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 4388 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 65% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 2845 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 46% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Landscapes and Wellbeing

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of various landscape features on their wellbeing. As the graph shows below, natural landscapes had a predominantly positive influence on wellbeing, while respondents were more divided about development and industry.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Utahns’ Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Graph 1: Established/Mid-Sized Cities & Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class. Data: Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 68% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 73% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 31% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 29% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 53% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 16% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 43% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 19% indicated positively or very positively. Graph 2: Rapid Growth Cities. Data: Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 59% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 35% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 32% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 30% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 37% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 47% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 18% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 39% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 22% indicated positively or very positively. Graph 3: Rural Hub/Resort & Traditional Rural Communities. Data: Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 24% indicated neither, 74% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 40% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 39% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 31% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 27% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 34% indicated positively or very positively.

Development and Industry in the Landscape

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of residential and commercial development and manufacturing and extractive industry in their landscape on their personal wellbeing. The graphs below shows that some rural communities were more positive about development and industry than their urban counterparts. 

Type: Dot Plot. Title: Influence of Residential & Commericial Development on Wellbeing. Subtitle: Average Response in Participating Utah Cities. Data: Park Cities has the most negative perception of both types of development. Blanding has the most positive. No clear trend in between.

 

Type: Dot Plot. Title: Influence of Manufacturing & Extractive Industry on Wellbeing. Subtitle: Average Response in Participating Utah Cities. Data: The trend shows Rural Hub/Resort & Traditional Rural Communities viewing manufacturing and extractive industry more postively than the others. Except Park City and Bluff are the two at the bottom viewing both types of industry the most negatively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

There were considerable differences in perspectives over population growth versus economic growth across the study cities. Respondents from all but the most rural cities felt population growth was too fast. There was more variation in perspectives on the pace of economic development. 

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

Concerns for the Future of Utah Cities

Top concerns varied across cities and clusters. Concerns for each city are found in their city report. Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Roads and Transportation were in the top 4 concerns across all three city clusters. Air Quality was a top 3 concern for both Established Mid-Sized/Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class and Rapid Growth cities. For respondents from Rural cities, Opportunities for Youth were a top concern. The graph below shows the aggregate concerns for all 2022 respondents across Utah. 

Title: Concerns for Utah Survey Respondents. Subtitle: As you look to the future of your city, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 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 Mental Health Care - 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

On This Page