By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

 

Cedar City Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension


extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Cedar City 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. The Cedar City mayor’s office and economic development office advertised the survey via social media and a newsletter. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from January 30, 2020 to March 8, 2020.

A total of 262 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Cedar City resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Public intercept surveys with iPads were also conducted in May 2019. A report based on those findings is available at https://usu.edu/utah-wellbeing-project/.

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 Cedar City survey respondents (96.9%) were full-time residents. Length of residency ranged from 0 to 70 years with an average of 8 years. The majority of respondents (70.9%) had been living in Cedar City more than 5 years. Regarding respondent zip code, 61.9% reported living in 84720 and 38.1% lived in 84721.

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 age 60 and older were overrepresented in the survey sample. The survey underrepresents those without a college degree, those with incomes under $50,000 and those who are nonwhite or Latino. 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 Cedar City residents.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Cedar City

Demographic Characteristics Cedar City iPad Survey 2019 (170 Respondents) Cedar City
Online Survey 2020
(262 Respondents)
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 51.4% 26.7% 57.1%
Age 40-59 26.1% 35.6% 23.0%
Age 60 or Over 22.5% 37.7% 19.9%
Female 60.9% 66.7% 49.9%
Male 39.1% 33.3% 51.1%
No college degree 57.1% 43.2% 66.3%
College degree (4-year) 42.9% 56.8% 33.7%
Median household income NA NA $52,524
Income Under $50,000 46.4% 28.3% 48.4%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 25.0% 28.8% 20.1%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 14.9% 16.4% 13.3%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 8.9% 15.9% 13.0%
Income $150,000 or over 4.8% 10.6% 5.2%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints
54.8% 47.2% NA
Other religion 24.2% 26.2% NA
No religious preference 21.0% 26.6% NA
White (non-Latino) 87.4% 93.5% 82.2%
Nonwhite or Latino 12.6% 6.5% 17.8%
Children under 18 in household NA 37.1% 39.4%
Employed (combined) NA 52.5% 60.0% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work NA 1.7% 3.5% (unemployed)
Retired NA 29.3% NA
Other NA 16.5% 36.5% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Cedar City

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Cedar City. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Cedar City was 3.99, with 78% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Cedar City was 3.56.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 53% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 25% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Cedar City? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 13% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Cedar City falls below the average of all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Cedar City in the “Established/Mid-Sized City” group, along with three other cities in this study (Bountiful, Draper, and Tooele). Of these cities, the score in Cedar City is statistically higher than that of Tooele and is statistically lower than that of Draper, but is not statistically significantly different from Bountiful.

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 Cedar City

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 local environmental quality, connection with nature, and safety and security. The top three most important wellbeing domains were safety and security, living standards, and physical and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Local Environmental Quality - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical 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: Cultural Opportunities - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Cedar City. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% of respondents 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: Mental Health - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 29% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 29% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 40% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 60% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables for age, gender college degree, religion, income, and zip code were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among Cedar City respondents. These relationships are shown in Table 2 below and are based on a multivariate generalized linear model using the categories from Table 1, excluding children in household and employment. Race/ethnicity was not found to play a significant role, but this could be due to sample size.

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 Zip Code
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing  +
     +
vs no religious preference
 + 
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
   
Wellbeing in Cedar City   +
vs 40-59
    +
vs no religious preference
    84720 > 84721
Connection to Nature      
vs other religion 
     
Cultural Opportunities  +
vs 18-39 
           
Education  +
vs 40-59 
  +        
Leisure Time   +            
Living Standards  +        + $150,000+ >
under $50,00
   
Local Environmental Quality        +
vs no religious preference
 + $150,000+ >
under $50,000
   
Mental Health   +            
Physical Health    
         
Safety & Security   +
vs 40-59
       -
vs no religious preference and other religion
     
Social Connections       +
vs no religious preference
     
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino Zip Code
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature  +
vs 18-39
  +  -
vs no religious preference and other religion
     
Cultural Opportunities     +        
Education     +        
Leisure Time    +   + 
vs other religion  
 + 
$150,000+ > under $50,000
   
Living Standards              
Local Environmental Quality  +
vs 40-59
    -
vs no religious preference
     
Mental Health  +
vs 40-59
  +          
Physical Health +
vs 18-39
    -
vs no religious preference
     
Safety and Security              
Social Connections      +  -
vs no religious preference
     

Wellbeing Matrix for Cedar City

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Cedar City. Mental Health and Physical Health fall into the red quadrant, indicating that they were of higher than average importance but rated lower than average. 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: Cedar City 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 Local Environmental Quality. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections, Leisure Time, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Mental Health and Physical Health.

Community Action & Connections in Cedar City

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Cedar City. 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 Cedar City, the average score was 3.37. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.14.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Cedar City. Subtitle: In Cedar City, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 3% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 39% of respondents; 4: 31% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents.

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Cedar City. Subtitle: In Cedar City, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 27% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 10% of respondents.

In terms of demographic characteristics, age, religion, and income played significant roles in responses to community questions as shown in Table 3. These findings are based on a multivariate generalized linear model. Additionally, there was 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 Cedar City take action? +
vs 40-59
    +
vs no religion preference
   
Do you feel connected to your community? +
    +    

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Cedar City. Of the 11 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 41 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 130 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 62 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 47% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% 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, red rock, and lakes, as well as trails and city parks, were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Farmland also had a positive influence for the vast majority of survey respondents.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, just over one-third of survey respondents indicated that extractive industry had a negative influence on their wellbeing. On the other hand, respondents indicated more positive than negative perceptions of commercial development, residential development, and manufacturing industry.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Cedar City 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, 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: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 24% indicated neither, 75% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 14% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 25% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 38% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 18% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 55% indicated neither, 27% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 56% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Cedar City

Survey respondents were split on their thoughts about population growth in Cedar City, with 46% saying it’s too fast and 43% saying it's just right. Regarding pace of economic development in Cedar City, 44% said it is too slow and 39% said it is just right. Compared to other cities surveyed in early 2020, Cedar City 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 Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Cedar City? Data - Too Slow: 2% of respondents; Just Right: 43% of respondents; Too Fast: 46% of respondents; No Opinion: 10% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Cedar City? Data - Too Slow: 44% of respondents; Just Right - 39% of respondents; Too Fast - 9% of respondents; No Opinion - 8% 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 Cedar City

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

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Cedar City Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 80% of respondents)
Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 20% of respondents)
Air Quality Substance Abuse
Access to Public Land Employment Opportunities
Recreation Opportunities Electronic Devices
Public Safety  
Access to Quality Food  

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 Cedar City had.

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Cedar City Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Access to quality and affordable education, SUU and USF (3) Good sidewalks/walkable town/trails (4) Lack of diversity/Religious discrimination/LDS domination/Racism (7) Overbuilding, development, rapid growth (4)
Activities, outdoor adult exercise park, senior friendly (2) Animals/Dogs (2) Cost of living/Decent paying jobs/Wage stagnation (4) Traffic (2)
Aging medical services Infrastructure Cleanliness of city/neighborhood trash (2) Homelessness (2)
Living wage More traffic lights Aging services Drugs
New roads Pay increase for city employees Inconsiderate/unsafe drivers Liminted airport destinations
Zoning violations   Noise Owning guns
    Over regulation, zoning Politicians
    Suicide  

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 99 Cedar City respondents (38% of those that completed the survey). Cedar City residents are concerned about a wide variety of issues. Many people expressed frustration with the lack of high-paying jobs in the area and the high cost of living relative to wages. Additionally, some Cedar City resident shared the sentiment that Cedar City is growing faster than existing infrastructure can keep up with. Others feel that they are unable to find community and connection due to the social climate in the city. Other concerns mentioned in comments include issues relating to traffic, healthcare, spending, and cultural opportunities. However, many people appreciate the outdoor recreation offered and love living in Cedar City.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Presence of a hostile social climate
  • Low wage and high cost of living
  • Lack of employment opportunities
  • Growing too fast
  • Many people love Cedar City

A Few Quotes:

  • “I worry that my children won’t be able to afford to live in Cedar City. Housing prices are too high and wages are too low.”
  • "It is very difficult to find a place to belong or a sense of community in Cedar City without being Mormon.”
  • “Cedar City is a friendly and caring small city.  I would like to see it stay that way, but I realize that Cedar City will get larger and as it grows there will be growing pains.  It is my hope that we will be able to retain the caring and friendly attitude as we grow.”
  • “I love living in this city and believe our walking trails are our greatest asset for helping the overall physical and mental well-being of people in this community.”
Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 19 positive comments, 67 negative comments, 10 mixed comments.
Bar chart. Title: Major Themes. Theme: Social Climate - mentioned 26 times; Employment - mentioned 17 times; Recreation - mentioned 15 times; Growth and Development - mentioned 14 times; Overall Happy - mentioned 14 times; Cultural Opportunities - mentioned 12 times; Transportation - mentioned 11 times; Government - mentioned 11 times; Housing - mentioned 10 times.