Dr. Courtney Flint

05/20/2020

View as a pdf

 

Draper Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

Summary

Draper 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. Draper City advertised the survey via social media and locally distributed flyers. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 3, 2020 to March 12, 2020.

A total of 355 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Draper resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Public intercept surveys with iPads were conducted in Summer 2019. A report based on those findings is available at https://extension.usu.edu/business-and-community/utah-wellbeing-project/index.

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 Draper survey respondents (99%) were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 0 to 73 years with an average of 11.5 years. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64%) lived in Draper 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 with college degrees, and those with household incomes over $150,000 are overrepresented in the resulting survey sample. The survey underrepresents those age 18-39, those with incomes under $75,000, and non-white or Latino individuals. 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 Draper residents.

Table 1

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

Demographic Characteristics Draper iPad Survey 2019 (61 Respondents) Draper
Online Survey 2020
(355 Respondents)
American Community Survey
2014-2018 Estimates
Age 18-39 54.1% 23.3% 42.3%
Age 40-59 32.7% 53.5% 41.1%
Age 60 or Over 11.5% 23.3% 16.6%
Female 13.3% 62.3% 52.3%
Male, other 86.7% 37.7% 47.7% (Male only)
No college degree 36.7% 27.0% 49.9%
College degree (4-year) 63.3% 73.0% 50.1%
Median household income NA NA $115,618
Income Under $50,000 16.4% 4.7% 16.1%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 13.1% 8.0% 14.9%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 16.4% 13.0% 11.0%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.4% 27.1% 22.9%
Income $150,000 or over 35.6% 47.2% 35.1%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints
62.5% 47.6% NA
Other religion 12.5% 21.7% NA
No religious preference 25.0% 30.7% NA
White (non-Latino) 94.9% 91.6% 85.1%
Nonwhite or Latino 5.1% 8.4% 14.9%
Children under 18 in household NA 48.9% 49.7%
Employed (combined) NA 73.4% 66.0% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work NA 0.6% 2.3% (unemployed)
Other NA 26.0% 31.6% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Draper

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Draper. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score among Draper respondents was 4.24, with 87% indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Draper was 3.97.

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: 5% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 35% 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

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

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 Living Standards and Safety and Security. Over 90% of respondents indicated that the following domains are important or very important: physical health, safety and security, local environmental quality, mental health, and living standards.

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: 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: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% 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: 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: Social Connections - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 79% 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 impotant, 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: 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: 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: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% 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: 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: 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, education, religion, and income were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among Draper 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.

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 18-39
       + 
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Wellbeing in   Draper           +   
Connection to Nature  +
vs 18-39
         
Cultural Opportunities  +
vs 18-39 
      +
vs no religious preference and other religion
   
Education     +      
Leisure Time  +
vs 40-59 
          
Living Standards       +    +   
Local Environmental Quality        +
vs no religious preference and other religion
   
Mental Health +
vs 18-39
        + 
$150,000+ >
$75,000-$99,999
 
Physical Health           +   
Safety & Security           + 
$150,000+ >
$75,000-$99,999
 
Social Connections        +
vs no religious preference and other religion
  + 
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities     +   -
vs no religious preference 
   
Education     +        
Leisure Time      +   -
vs no religious preference
  + 
$150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
 
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health            
Physical Health      +       
Safety and Security     +   +
vs no religious preference
   
Social Connections +  +         

Wellbeing Matrix for Draper

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Draper. Local environmental quality falls into the red quadrant, indicating that it was 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 was 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 Draper

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Draper. 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 Draper, the average score was 3.36. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.10.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Cedar City. Subtitle: In Bountiful, 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 and community-related questions, religion and income played significant roles as shown in Table 3. 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 no religion preference and other religion
   
Do you feel connected to your community?       +
vs no religion preference and other religion
$150,000+ > $50,000-$74,999  

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. Mountains, trails, city parks, rivers and streams, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on respondents’ wellbeing. Over two-thirds of respondents (70%) also noted farmland as having a positive influence and almost two-thirds of respondents (65%) noted red rock as having a positive influence.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, 80% of respondents noted the presence of extractive industry as having a negative or very negative influence on their wellbeing. More than half (57%) of respondents noted the presence of manufacturing industry as having a negative influence. Over one-third noted the presence of residential development (38%) and commercial development (39%) as having a negative influence.

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: City Parks - 0% of respodents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 83% 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: 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: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 92% 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 Draper

Survey respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they felt population growth was too fast (72%). Just under half of respondents also felt that economic development was too fast (44%), while an equal percentage felt that it was just right (44%). Draper was in the top group of cities where survey respondents felt population growth was too fast and had the lowest percentage of respondents that indicated that economic development was too slow. It had the third-highest percentage of respondents indicate that economic development was too fast.

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 Bountiful? 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 Vekin - 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 Draper

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

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Draper Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 83% of respondents)
Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 28% of respondents)
Recreation Opportunities Substance Abuse
Access to Public Land Air Quality
Public Safety Electronic Devices
Access to Quality Food Affordable Housing
Access to Healthcare  

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 Draper had.

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Draper Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Trails and parks (3) City leader responsiveness, transparent government (2) Traffic (incl on Highland Drive), roads (7) High density housing (incl low-income, multifamily housing), rentals (5)
Clean environment, cleanliness (2) Controlled growth, restricted development (2) Crowding, overpopulation, rapid growth (6) Air pollution/air quality (5)
Good schools (2) Off-leash area for dogs (2) Geneva Rock, mining, sound of explosions, visual impact (5) Lack of open space (3)
Public transit (2) Tennis courts (2) Self-serving government motives, council and mayor too close, those government with hands out (3) Business construction, too many large office buildings (2)
Creative arts Library Development, sketchy development (2) 5G cellular signals
Low density hosuing Lower price for summer water use Excesss of sober living homes Fluoride
Recycling Religious availability Homes to high on mountain ruining skyline for everyone Homogenous community, often intolerant
Restaurants and bars Sense of place, respect for history, buildings Lack of neighborhood parks with restrooms Lack of recycling options
Unobstructed mountain views Walkable community No high-quality restaurants Panhandling
Water   Planners (busybodies) Prison site development
    Radiation in wtaer Tested for high levels of aluminum and lead since moving to Draper
    Use of cell phones by young children  

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 129 respondents (36% of those that completed the survey). The primary concerns of Draper residents were mostly related to growth and development of the city. Housing density was a big issue for many, as they are worried about the influx of new residents it brings in. Increases in traffic, crowding of school systems, and pressure on existing infrastructure were other concerns related to growth. Some felt that priority is being given to developers over Draper residents. Additionally, many people were concerned about mining, specifically at Geneva Rock, and did not like the poor air quality. Improving recreational opportunities, specifically by the addition of indoor tennis courts, was also mentioned several times.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Too much high-density housing
  • Growth and development too fast and uncontrolled
  • Concerns about mining and air quality
  • Too much traffic
  • Wanting more alternative and public transportation

A Few Quotes:

  • “Too many apartment complexes with no improvement to current roads. Traffic in Draper is becoming unbearable. Planning needs to be addressed more carefully.”
  • “Draper is a lovely place. My concern exists around the rapid growth, with what seems like very little thought to long term effects on traffic, air quality and quality of life.” 
  • “We need to find a way to limit or prevent ongoing mining at Geneva Rock. It threatens the health of families and new businesses that continue to grow around it.”
  • “The air is my number one complaint, and it is far from a minor one. I think about the air quality every single day.”
  • “The traffic due to rapid construction in Draper is quickly getting worse. Draper is building houses and businesses, but not keeping up with transportation infrastructure.”
Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 19 positive comments, 67 negative comments, 10 mixed comments
Bar chart. Title: Major Concerns. Concern: 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.