By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

 

Delta Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Delta 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. Delta City advertised the survey via social media, newsletter, the city website and locally distributed flyers. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from January 27, 2020 to March 4, 2020.

A total of 88 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Delta 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

Nearly all of the Delta survey respondents (94%) were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 1 to 62 years with an average of 23 years. More than three-quarters of respondents (82%) lived in Delta for 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, those age 18-39, those with children in the household, and those unemployed are overrepresented in the resulting survey sample. The survey underrepresents those with incomes under $50,000, nonwhites and Latinos, and those age 60 and over. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents may not be fully representative of Delta residents.

Table 1

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

Demographic Characteristics Delta
Online Survey 2020
(88 Respondents)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 48.1% 33.4%
Age 40-59 34.6% 26.0%
Age 60 or Over 17.3% 40.6%
Female 66.7% 53.9%
Male 33.3% 46.1%
No college degree 67.9% 76.6%
College degree (4-year) 32.1% 23.4% (age 25+)
Median household income NA $52,639
Income Under $50,000 29.1% 48.5%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 19.0% 21.4%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 22.8% 11.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 24.1% 12.9%
Income $150,000 or over 5.1% 5.7%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 68.8% NA
Other religion 13.8% NA
No religious preference 17.5% NA
White (non-Latino) 98.8% 75.9%
Nonwhite or Latino 1.2% 24.1%
Children under 18 in household 63.0% 38.6%
Employed (combined) 75.6% 54.0% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 1.8% (unemployed)
Other 24.4% 44.2% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Delta

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Delta. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score among Delta respondents was 3.99, with 75% indicating a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Delta was 3.42.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Delta. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 45% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 30% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Delta. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Delta? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 11% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 12% of respondents

The average personal wellbeing score in Delta falls below the average of all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Delta in the “Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities” group, along with four other cities in this study as indicated in the graph below. There is no statistically significant difference among cities in this group on personal wellbeing.

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 Delta

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

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Delta. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% 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: Local Environmental Quality - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 60% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 59% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 41% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 79% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 21% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Delta. 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: 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 - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% of respondents 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: Education - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 42% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 58% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 58% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 42% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables for age, gender, education, religion and income were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among Delta 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 race/ethnicity, 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        +
vs other religion		     Insufficent data
Wellbeing in Delta           +    Insufficent data
Connection to Nature            Insufficent data
Cultural Opportunities             Insufficent data
Education             Insufficent data
Leisure Time             Insufficent data
Living Standards   +
vs 18-39		        +    Insufficent data
Local Environmental Quality          +    Insufficent data
Mental Health   +       +
vs no religious preference		   +    Insufficent data
Physical Health       -
vs other religion		     Insufficent data
Safety & Security             Insufficent data
Social Connections             Insufficent data
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature          —   Insufficent data
Cultural Opportunities     +       Insufficent data
Education  —      +
vs no religious preference and other religion 		     Insufficent data
Leisure Time   -
vs 40-49		           Insufficent data
Living Standards             Insufficent data
Local Environmental Quality          +
vs no religious preference		   Insufficent data
Mental Health     +      +   Insufficent data
Physical Health          +   Insufficent data
Safety and Security          +   Insufficent data
Social Connections      +         Insufficent data

Wellbeing Matrix for Delta

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Delta. Education and Physical Health fall into the red quadrant, indicating that they were higher in average importance, but rated lower than average. Mental Health approaches this quadrant as its rating is only slightly higher than the overall average rating, but its importance is much higher than the overall average importance. It is important to note that all domains except for cultural opportunities have an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Delta 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 Local Environmental Quality. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: 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: Education and Physical Health.

Community Action & Connections in Delta

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Delta. 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 Delta, the average score was 3.48. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.21.     

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Delta. Subtitle: In Delta, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 1% of respondents; 2: 17% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 17% of respondents.

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Delta. Subtitle: In Delta, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 28% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents

In terms of demographic characteristics and community-related questions, age, religion, and income played significant roles (see Table 3). Additionally, there was a significant, positive relationship between individuals’ community connectedness and their 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 Delta take action?          +  Insufficient data
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 18-49		     +
vs no religion preference		 +  Insufficient data

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Delta. Of the 4 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 75% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 18 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 78% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 39 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 56% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 25 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 40% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% 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. Mountains, trails, rivers and streams, city parks, farmland, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on respondents’ wellbeing. Sixty percent of respondents also noted red rock as having a positive influence.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, the majority of respondents noted that the presence of residential development (62%) and commercial development (59%) in the landscape has a positive influence on their wellbeing. Nearly half (49%) of respondents noted that the presence of manufacturing industry has a positive influence on their wellbeing and 41% noted that the presence extractive industry has a positive influence.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Delta 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, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 60% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 10% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 62% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 9% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 59% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 9% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 49% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 10% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Delta

Half of survey respondents indicated that they felt the rate of population growth is just right while 31% noted that it is too slow. The vast majority of respondents noted that they felt the pace of economic development is too slow, and no respondents noted that they felt it is too fast. Compared to the other cities in the winter 2020 survey, Delta had the highest proportion of respondents that said both population growth and the pace of economic development are too slow.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Delta. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Delta? Data - Too Slow: 31% of respondents; Just Right: 50% of respondents; Too Fast: 9% of respondents; No Opinion: 10% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Delta. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Delta? Data - Too Slow: 80% of respondents; Just Right - 17% of respondents; Too Fast - 0% of respondents; No Opinion - 3% 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 Delta

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

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Delta Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 71% of respondents)		 Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 28% of respondents)
Air Quality Substance Abuse
Access to Public Land Employment Opportunities
Recreation Opportunities Shopping Opportunities
Public Safety Opprtunities for Youth
Roads and Transportation Affordable Housing

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 Delta had.

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Delta Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Law enforcement Religious opportunities New business to Delta Homless housing
Jobs Clean water Mass factory farming Entertainment places
Industry Neighborhood appearance    

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 23 Delta respondents (26% of those that completed the survey). These comments indicate that Delta respondents were mainly concerned about slow economic growth and lack of development in the area. Many people appreciate the friendly, small town feel of Delta, but are worried that there aren’t enough well-paying jobs and economic amenities to keep people in the area. Many respondents noted that they wish there were more recreation opportunities and options for restaurants and shopping. People are especially concerned about youth having safe places to hang out, as they are worried about drugs and substance abuse. Overall, people enjoy living in Delta but want to see it thrive.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Not enough economic growth
  • Lack of economic amenities
  • Lack of well-paying jobs
  • Concern about substance abuse
  • Enjoy small town feel

A Few Quotes:

  • “More employment opportunities, more retail and commercial businesses, more food service establishments, a more proactive chamber of commerce to help entice new businesses to open operations in Delta.”
  • “Being small is the biggest perk of living in the area.  Would like to see more support keeping drugs out of the area.”
  • "I find the city of Delta a friendly place. The neighborhood in which I live is probably the best one I have lived in my entire life. My interactions with city officials and law enforcement have always been pleasant, informative, and upbeat. I feel if I need help, I can get it easily.”
  • “Delta needs growth like shopping and restaurants and new motels. Jobs to keep people wanting to live here.”

On This Page

Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 19 positive comments, 2 negative comments, 2 mixed comments
Bar chart. Title: Major Concerns. Concern: Economy - mentioned 8 times; Employment - mentioned 6 times; Social Climate - mentioned 5 times; Safety - mentioned 4 times; Growth and Development - mentioned 4 times.