Dr. Courtney Flint

05/20/2020

View as a pdf

Bountiful Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

Summary

Bountiful is one of 25 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Project. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process.

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. Bountiful City advertised the survey via social media, a newsletter, and the city website. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 6, 2020 and March 14, 2020.

A total of 350 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Bountiful resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Contact Information: Courtney Flint, courtney.flint@usu.edu, 435-797-8635
Acknowledgements: Utah League of Cities and Towns, Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, and Caitlyn Rogers

Respondent Characteristics

The vast majority of Bountiful survey respondents (98%) were full-time residents. Length of residency ranged from 0 to 97 years with an average of 21 years. The majority of respondents (74%) had been living in Bountiful more than 5 years.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. As the table shows, females and those with college degrees, children in the household, and household incomes greater than $75,000 were overrepresented. Latinos and other non-white individuals are underrepresented. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents are not fully representative of Bountiful residents.

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

Demographic Characteristics Bountiful
Online Survey 2020
(350 Respondents)
American Community Survey
2014-2018 Estimates
Age 18-39 37.7% 41.8%
Age 40-59 36.7% 30.0%
Age 60 or Over 25.6% 28.1%
Female 66.1% 51.2%
Male 33.9% 48.8% 
No college degree 40.1% 55.1%
College degree (4-year) 59.9% 44.9%
Median household income NA $72,796
Income Under $50,000 16.7% 30.1%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 13.8% 23.0%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 21.6% 14.0%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 24.9% 18.1%
Income $150,000 or over 23.0% 15.9%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints
58.2% NA
Other religion 10.9% NA
No religious preference 30.9% NA
White (non-Latino) 94.5% 83.6%
Nonwhite or Latino 5.5% 16.4%
Children under 18 in household 47.1% 36.5%
Employed (combined) 66.8% 60.3% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 3.4% (unemployed)
Other 32.7% 36.4% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Bountiful

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Bountiful. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Bountiful was 4.11, with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Bountiful was 3.96

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 16% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 34% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Bountiful? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 44% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 28% of respondents

The average personal wellbeing score in Bountiful falls into the top half of wellbeing scores for all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Bountiful in the "Established/Mid-Sized City" group, along with three other cities in this study (Draper, Cedar City, and Tooele). Of these cities, Bountiful is above average, though not statistically different from Cedar City or Draper.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.

Wellbeing Domains in Bountiful

According to national and international entities tracking wellbeing, a number of common domains make up wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, and indicated their importance to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. Based on percentage with a good or excellent rating, the top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents were safety and security, living standards, and education. The top three most important wellbeing domains were safety and security, living standards, and local environmental quality. Mental health and physical health were also important or very important to most respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 17% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 83% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 55% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 45% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 64% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 36% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Bountiful. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 33% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 42% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 58% rated as important or very important.


The demographic variables for age, gender, education, religion, income, and race/ethnicity were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among Bountiful respondents. These relationships are shown in Table 2 and are based on a multivariate generalized linear model using the categories from Table 1, excluding children in household and employment.

Table 2
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing         +
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Wellbeing in Bountiful       +
vs other religion
+
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Connection to Nature +       +  
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 18-39
         
Education +
vs 40-59
  +   +  
Leisure Time +       +
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Living Standards +   + +
vs other religion
+  
Local Environmental Quality       +
vs other religion &
no religious preference
+  
Mental Health +       +
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Physical Health +       +
vs no religious preference
+
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Safety & Security            
Social Connections + +   +
vs other religion &
no religious preference

+
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature      
vs no religious preference
 +  
Cultural Opportunities  +
vs 40-59
+         
Education     +     +
$150,000+ > $75,000-$99,000
 
Leisure Time            
Living Standards    +     +   
Local Environmental Quality        
vs other religion &
no religious preference

 + 
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Mental Health    +        
Physical Health  +
vs 18-39
 +        
Safety and Security    +        
Social Connections    +         

Wellbeing Matrix for Bountiful

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Bountiful. Local Environmental Quality falls into the red quadrant, indicating that it was found to be of higher than average importance but rated lower than average. Physical Health and Mental Health are also approaching this quadrant, as their overall importance scores are quite high, yet their overall ratings are only slightly higher than the overall average rating. It is important to note that all domains have an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains is higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Bountiful 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, Mental Health, and Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education, Connection with Nature, and Leisure Time. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality.

Community Action & Connections in Bountiful

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Bountiful. Both questions were scored on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5). When asked about the degree to which people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities in Bountiful, the average score was 3.63. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.23.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Bountiful. Subtitle: In Bountiful, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 13% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 25% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Bountiful. Subtitle: In Bountiful, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents

In terms of demographics, those age 60 and over and those that indicated their religion is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were more likely to report that people in Bountiful take action in response to local problems or opportunities than non-religious individuals or individuals belonging to a different religious group (see Table 3). They also reported higher levels of community connectedness. Moreover, a significant, positive relationship between individuals' community connectedness and their overall personal wellbeing.

Table 3
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Do people in Bountiful take action? +
vs 18-39
    +    
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 18-39
    +    

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Bountiful. Of the 12 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 92% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 8% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 51 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 69% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 154 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 55% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 110 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 38% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 62% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, rivers and streams, and lakes, as well as trails and city parks, were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Farmland and red rock also had a positive influence for the majority of survey respondents.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, over one-third (39%) of respondents indicated that the presence of commercial development has a positive influence on their wellbeing and one-third indicated that residential development has a positive influence. Comparatively, over two-thirds of respondents indicated that extractive industry has a negative influence on their wellbeing and almost half (48%) indicated that manufacturing industry has a negative influence.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Bountiful Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? 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: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 64% 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: Commercial Development - 19% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 39% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 33% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 48% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 69% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 27% indicated neither, 4% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Bountiful

Almost half (46%) of survey respondents noted that the rate of population growth in Bountiful is too fast, while 38% indicated that it is just right. Comparatively, 43% of survey respondents indicated that the pace of economic development is just right while just over one-third (35%) indicated that it is too slow. Compared to other cities surveyed in early 2020, Bountiful had a relatively small percentage of respondents indicate that population growth is too fast and a relatively small percentage indicate that economic development is too slow. 

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Bountiful? Data - Too Slow: 3% of respondents; Just Right: 38% of respondents; Too Fast: 46% of respondents; No Opinion: 13% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Bountiful? Data - Too Slow: 35% of respondents; Just Right - 43% of respondents; Too Fast - 14% of respondents; No Opinion - 9% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth in Sampled Utah Cities. Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 91% indicated too fast; Lehi - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 83% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 80% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Draper - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Tooele - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 70% indicated too fast. North Logan - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 66% indicated too fast. Moab - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 64% indicated too fast; Nibley - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 60% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nephi - 6% of respondents indicated too slow, 53% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 12% of respondents indicated too slow, 35% indicated too fast; Richfield - 14% of respondents indicated too slow, 18% indicated too fast; Delta - 31% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Helper - 22% of respondents indicated too slow, 8% indicated too fast.

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development in Sampled Utah Cities. Draper - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 44% indicated too fast; Lehi - 9% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nibley - 19% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Moab - 24% of respondents indicated too slow, 62% indicated too fast; North Logan - 29% of respondents indicated too slow, 19% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 35% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 44% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 45% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 47% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Herriman - 48% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated too slow, 15% indicated too fast; Helper - 52% of respondents indicated too slow, 2% indicated too fast; Nephi - 54% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 56% of respondents indicated too slow, 11% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 58% of respondents indicated too slow, 12% indicated too fast; Richfield - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 5% indicated too fast; Tooele - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 10% indicated too fast; Delta - 80% of respondents indicated too slow, 0% indicated too fast.

Risks and Assets for Wellbeing in Bountiful

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a major or minor risk or asset to wellbeing in Bountiful (see Table 4).

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Bountiful Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 84% of respondents)
Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 25% of respondents)
Public Safety Substance Abuse
Recreation Opportunities Air Quality
Access to Quality Food Affordable Housing
Access to Health Care  
Access to Public Land  

Respondents also wrote in other assets and risks as shown in Table 5. It is clear that some people not only listed current assets, but also those they wish Bountiful had.

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Bountiful Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Parks for all including people with animals, walking access to parks (2) Access to art, arts and culture (2) Exceptionally exclusionary attitude of LDS Church, not belonging to dominant religion (4) Overpopulation, growth (3)
Bike lanes (2) Dog park (3) City government, current mayor (3) Potholes, roads (2)
Affordable family outings (all seasons) Nature, open lands High density housing, large apartment complexes (2) Quality of internet, Utopia fiber internet (2)
Backyard gardens Opportunities for single adults Location of refineries (2) Traffic congestion and noise (2)
Community outside of church Proximity to urban center Diversity Taxes
Deer presence Small business Friendliness to young families The allowance of homeless population to drift into Bountiful
Emergency services Trails Maintaining zoning standards Theft
Government access   Remove fluoride from water system Water use
    Restaurants Church influence over government

Housing Findings in Bountiful

Of the survey respondents,

  • 84% live in a single-family house (6% townhome, 7% apartment, 3% condo or other).
  • 83% own their home.
  • 25% spend more than one-third of their after-tax income on rent or mortgage.
  • 21% are very likely to change housing arrangements in the next 5 years (18% were somewhat likely, 61% said they were not at all likely or not very likely.

For those desiring a housing change,

  • 71% seek to own their next housing (8% seek to rent, 21% not sure).
  • 72% seek single-family housing, 13% seek a townhome, 5% seek an apartment.

According to survey respondents, the greatest obstacles in seeking new housing include the price and type of housing stock. Not having enough money was also indicated as an obstacle for 49% of respondents.

 Grouped Bar Chart. Title: Obstacles in Seeking New Housing. Obstacle: Not enough housing stock in my price range in the area - 24% noted as no obstacle, 24% as minor obstacle, 52% as major obstacle; Not enough housing stock of my preference type in the area - 32% noted as no obstacle, 31% as minor obstacle, 38% as major obstacle; Not having enough money - 52% noted as no obstacle, 27% as minor obstacle, 22% as major obstacle; Not having established credit history to qualify for a loan - 87% noted as no obstacle, 7% as minor obstacle, 7% as major obstacle; Not knowing how to start the process of buying or renting a new home - 87% noted as no obstacle, 10% as minor obstacle, 3% as major obstacle; Not knowing someone to help with the home buying or renting process - 89% noted as no obstacle, 9% as minor obstacle, 3% as major obstacle.

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 113 Bountiful respondents (32% of those that completed the survey). Bountiful residents are concerned about a wide variety of issues, ranging from city leadership to air quality to shopping. Some people are worried about the increase in high-density housing, while the cost of housing is the primary concern of others. There is a sense of a class division between those who are established, long term residents and the younger families. Many people wish there were a greater variety of shopping and dining options available within Bountiful. Several people voiced frustrations with the city leadership and the current spending and development decisions. Another issue brought up is park maintenance and lack of recreational opportunities. Air pollution was mentioned several times, with many people concerned about their health. However, overall, many people love living in Bountiful and are pleased with all it has to offer.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Building too much high-density housing
  • Lacking restaurant and shopping variety
  • Problems with traffic and transportation
  • Offering recreation maintenance and opportunities
  • A love of living in Bountiful

A Few Quotes:

  • "Please stop making Bountiful into Little Salt Lake. Massive multifamily housing units and large commercial buildings are ruining the landscape of Bountiful." 
  • "I feel housing for people has risen so much to the point that so many younger families cannot afford to get into a home. Also, the price of rent is so high that they cannot save for a home because the rent on their apartment or townhouse is so high."
  • "Clean air should be a priority! Bountiful citizens feel like our air quality gets sold to the highest bidder - the refineries pumping hazards into the air take precedence over anything and it's incredibly frustrating."
  • "I feel like our city struggles a lot with ageism. Everything from marketing, housing, religious practices, social engagements, employment, etc. seem to do a lot with age. The old and the young separate themselves so much that I feel it's a huge struggle to connect with the heritage of Bountiful and its people."

    Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 9 positive comments, 92 negative comments, 12 mixed comments.

    Bar chart. Title: Major Concerns. Concern: Housing - mentioned 24 times; Economy - mentioned 22 times; Transportation - mentioned 20 times; Social Climate - mentioned 20 times; Government - mentioned 17 times; Natural Resources - mentioned 14 times.

 

Summary