By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Delta Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University logo
Utah Wellness Survey logo

Summary

Delta City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project and has been involved since 2020. 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. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 Delta survey with initial information on changes since 2020 and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, Delta City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter, social media, and the city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 90 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 81% complete responses. 
  • The 2020 survey had 88 responses. The 2020 Delta Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Delta was estimated at 2,350 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 90 survey responses represent 3.8% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 10.13%. 

Key Findings in Delta

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Delta were below average among 29 study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Connection with Nature

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Mental Health
  • Safety and Security
  • Physical Health

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Leisure Time

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 47% of respondents.

Perceptions that residents take action in Delta were far higher than in any other study area. Feelings of community connection were also higher in Delta than in most other study communities.

The majority of respondents felt the rate of Population Growth was just right, but that the Pace of Economic Development was too slow.

Top concerns for the future of Delta were:

  • Substance Abuse (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (68% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Shopping Opportunities (67% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Delta? 
Small-town feel and sense of community.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Delta 98.9%
Part Time Residents of Delta 1.1%
Length of Residency - Range 1-59 years
Length of Residency - Average 26 years
Length of Residency - Median 26 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 10.0%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of Delta. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree or more, are married, own their home, and have children in household were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 are particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics. 

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

Demographic Characteristics Delta Online Wellbeing Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2022 Estimates
2020 (N=88) 2021 (N=90)
Age 18-29 18.5% 20.5% 12.5%
Age 30-39 29.6% 28.8% 21.9%
Age 40-49 21.0% 26.0% 10.3%
Age 50-59 13.6% 15.1% 14.7%
Age 60-69 11.1% 8.2% 24.7%
Age 70 or over 6.2% 1.4% 15.9%
Adult female 66.7% 79.5% 53.9%
Adult male 33.3% 20.5% 46.1%
No college degree 67.9% 79.5% 76.6%
College degree (4-year) 33.3% 20.5% 23.4%
Median household income NA NA $52,693
Income under $25,000 10.1% 6.8% 20.7%
Income $25,000-$49,999 19.0% 19.2% 27.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 19.0% 24.7% 21.4%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 22.8% 12.3% 11.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 24.1% 16.4% 12.9%
Income $150,000 or over 5.1% 12.3% 5.7%
Latter-day Saint 68.8% 76.7% NA
Other religion 13.8% 13.7% NA
No religious preference 17.5% 9.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 4.2% 20.9%
White 98.8% 97.2% 86.7%
Nonwhite 1.2% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 2.8% 13.3%
Married 85.4% 62.2% 64.0%
Children under 18 in household 63.0% 58.9% 38.6%
Employed (combined) 75.6% 71.2% 54.0%
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 1.4% 1.8%
Other 24.4% 27.4% 44.2%
Own home/owner occupied NA 80.8% 61.6%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 19.2% 38.4%

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 both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Delta was 3.78, with 67% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Delta was 3.51 with 52% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Delta. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 21% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Delta. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Delta? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 13% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 38% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 14% of respondents

The graph below compares 2020 and 2021 survey data from Delta for personal wellbeing score and community wellbeing. Personal wellbeing declined, but community wellbeing in Delta increased between 2020 and 2021. Individuals are not tracked from year to year.

Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing from 2020-2021 in Delta. Score on a scale of 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data: year 2020- Personal Wellbeing- 3.99, Community Wellbeing- 3.42; Year 2021- Personal Wellbeing- 3.78, Community Wellbeing- 3.51.

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 47% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 48% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Delta declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Delta. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; Declined slightly: 40%; No change: 31%; Improved slightly: 20%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Delta. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Delta changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 4%; Declined slightly: 44%; No change: 39%; Improved slightly: 9%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Delta as falling in the Traditional Rural Community cluster of Utah cities (which we have combined with the Rural Hub/Resort Cities). Within this cluster, Delta was below average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Delta was not statistically significantly different other cities in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it was statistically significantly higher than East Carbon and statistically significantly lower than Richfield on overall community wellbeing.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.22; Sandy: Average Score 4.13; Bountiful: Average Score 4.06; South Ogden: Average Score 4.05; Layton: Average Score 3.98; Logan: Average Score 3.81; Tooele: Average Score 3.79. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.18; Vineyard: Average Score 4.17; Nibley: Average Score 4.16; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Hurricane: Average Score 4.08; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.06; Nephi: Average Score 4.05; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.03; Santaquin: Average Score 4.00; Lehi: Average Score 3.98; Ephraim: Average Score 3.86; Herriman: Average Score 3.86. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.07; Wellington: Average Score 4.02; La Verkin: Average Score 3.98; Blanding: Average Score 3.88; Moab: Average Score 3.82; East Carbon: Average Score 3.82; Price: Average Score 3.79, Delta: Average Score: 3.78; Vernal: Average Score 3.66.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Bountiful: Average Score 3.96; Draper: Average Score 3.89; Sandy: Average Score 3.80; Layton: Average Score 3.72; South Ogden: Average Score 3.68; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Tooele: Average Score 3.28. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.06; Vineyard: Average Score 3.95; North Logan: Average Score 3.91; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.87; Nibley: Average Score 3.80; Hurricane: Average Score 3.75; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.66; Lehi: Average Score 3.60; Santaquin: Average Score 3.59; Nephi: Average Score 3.58; Ephraim: Average Score 3.57; Herriman: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 3.88; Helper: Average Score 3.73; La Verkin: Average Score 3.62; Wellington: Average Score 3.61; Delta: Average Score 3.51; Blanding: Average Score 3.48; Vernal: Average Score 3.27; Price: Average Score 3.17, Moab: Average Score: 3.13; East Carbon: Average Score 2.98.

Wellbeing Domains in Delta

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing well in each area. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Delta were Safety and Security, Local Environmental Quality, and Connection with Nature. The three most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health, Safety and Security, 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: Safety and Security - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 60% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 40% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 71% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 29% 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? Physical Health - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 1% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 99% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 30% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% 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: Cultural Opportunities - 46% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 54% rated as important or very important.

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. Safety and Security, and Living Standards were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Leisure Time, Physical Health, and Mental Health fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that it was of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Please note that all domains except for Cultural Opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was 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. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Education, Social Connections, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time, Physical Health and Mental Health.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Cultural Opportunities, Social Connections, and Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Leisure Time for 14% of respondents and Connection to Naturefor 12% of respondents.


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Delta. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 64% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 33% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 67% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 31% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 58% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 38% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 43% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 43% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 14% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 37% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 57% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 35% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 12% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 45% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 75% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category:  Local Environmental Quality- 23% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 75% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 76% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Delta residents.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Bountiful, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.6; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.8; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.75, Category: Education- 2020- 3.15, 2021- 3.2; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.4; 2021 3.3; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.6; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.8 2021- 3.6; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.3, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.4; 2021- 3.05, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.7, 2021- 2.6.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The number of survey responses for Delta are insufficient for multivariate analysis of the influence of demographic characteristics on wellbeing. It does appear from other cities that factors such as age, gender, religion and income are significantly related to wellbeing. If we are able to gather more responses in the future, we will be able to asses these relationships.

Community Action & Connections in Delta

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection 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 3.99. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.22.

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: 3% of respondents; 2: 8% of respondents; 3: 16% of respondents; 4: 35% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 38% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Delta. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Delta as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 22% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% of respondents

A significant, positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Delta. Of the 10 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 70% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 17 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 76% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 34 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 53% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 18 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 22% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 78% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. Delta is by far the top city on perceived community action and is in the top 5 on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5- point scale.

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: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 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: Nibley- 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: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 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: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% 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: 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: Richfield- 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: Ephriam- 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- 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: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 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: Tooele- 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: Santaquin- 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: Herriman- 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: South Ogden- 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: Logan- 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: Price- 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: Lehi- 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: Saratoga Springs- 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: Layton- 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: Sandy- 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: Vineyard- 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: 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.
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- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 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: Delta- 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: Nephi 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: Moab- 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: Spanish Fork- 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: Wellington- 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: Richfield- 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: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 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: Ephriam- 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: Hyde Park- 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: East Carbon- 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- 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: Bountiful- 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: Nibley- 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: Logan- 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: Draper- 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: Tooele- 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: Layton- 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: Vineyard- 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: Santaquin- 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: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Delta was 2.72. Church group activities (53%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by working with others on an issue in the community (46%) and school group activities (44%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Delta. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 53% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 46% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 34% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 39% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 44% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 32% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 19% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were a bit more divided, but still more positive than negative.

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 - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 66% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 57% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 11% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 55% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 50% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Just over half of Delta survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (55%) and that economic development was too slow (57%).

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Delta. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Delta? Data – 18% of respondents rated too slow; 55% of respondents rated just right; 17% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Delta. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Delta? Data – 57% of respondents rated too slow; 34% of respondents rated just right; 1% of respondents rated too fast; 8% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Delta compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Respondent’s Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: Population Growth, 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: Draper – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 72% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Ogden – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 52% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 48% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 90% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 84% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 80% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 79% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 70% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 68% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 57% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 55% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 35% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast;City: La Verkin – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 46% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 14% of respondents rated too slow, 29% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 18% of respondents rated too slow, 17% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 15% of respondents rated too slow, 11% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 32% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 35% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Economic Growth, 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, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 19% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 28% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 22% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 41% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 39% of respondents rated too slow, 13% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 73% of respondents rated too fast; City: La Verkin – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 64% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 57% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 51% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 75% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 79% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 66% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in Delta

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Delta. Substance Abuse, Opportunities for Youth, and Employment Opportunities were the top three concerns with 74% to 79% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Delta. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Delta, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Affordable Housing- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Roads and Transportation- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 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- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 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- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 11 respondents who filled in the “other” category. 

Other Concerns Mentioned

Drugs

Gun ownership

High taxes

Housing crash

Lack of indoor recreational center

People not wearing a mask

People taking COVID seriously

Powerplant reduction in workforce

Social connections

Unemployment

Water usage

 

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Delta with one question on what they value most about their city and another for any additional comments on wellbeing. A summary of values is below. Analysis is ongoing regarding all additional comments and a summary will be added to the report later in 2021.

Key themes in response to “Please tell us what you value most about living in Delta”


Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Delta. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 55 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small Town Feel, Connected, Friendly, family-friendly, Good Values;  Category: City Character- 10 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include quiet and peaceful, good quality of life; Category: Natural Resources- 11 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Farmland/Open Space, Nature, Good Air Quality;  Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 22 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Feels safe/Not Much Crime, Not much Traffic, Low Housing Cost, Good Pace of Growth, Good Location, and Quality Healthcare

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

On This Page

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Madison Fjeldsted, Jordan Hammon, and Sarah Wilson.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.