By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

 

Eagle Mountain Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

Extension Utah State University Logo
Wellbeing Survey logo

Summary

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

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. Eagle Mountain City advertised the survey via social media and city email lists. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 13, 2020 to March 15, 2020.

A total of 506 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Eagle Mountain 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

Eagle Mountain survey respondents were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 0 to 25 years with an average of 7.3 years. Almost half (49.3%) of the respondents lived in Eagle Mountain for 5 years or less.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. As the table shows, females and those with college degrees are overrepresented in the resulting survey sample and nonwhite or Latino residents are underrepresented. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents are not fully representative of Eagle Mountain residents.

Table 1

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

Demographic Characteristics Eagle Mountain
Online Survey 2020
(506 Respondents)
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 53.0% 65.5%
Age 40-59 38.2% 27.9%
Age 60 or Over 8.9% 6.6%
Female 67.8% 47.9%
Male 32.2% 52.1%
No college degree 51.9% 64.6%
College degree (4-year) 48.1% 35.4% (age 25+)
Median household income NA $87,094
Income Under $50,000 10.7% 15.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 19.8% 20.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 31.0% 29.9%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 26.8% 25.3%
Income $150,000 or over 11.7% 9.1%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints
70.2% NA
Other religion 11.8% NA
No religious preference 18.0% NA
White (non-Latino) 90.6% 85.4%
Nonwhite or Latino 9.4% 14.6%
Children under 18 in household 74.5% 77.7% (related only)
Employed (combined) 76.1% 72.8% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 2.7% (unemployed)
Other 23.3% 24.6% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Eagle Mountain

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Eagle Mountain. These wellbeing indicators are measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Eagle Mountain was 4.14, with 84% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Eagle Mountain was 3.79.

ar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 14% of respondents; 4: 51% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 33% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Delta? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 26% of respondents; 4: 52% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 16% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Eagle Mountain falls into the top half of wellbeing scores for all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Eagle Mountain in the “Rapid Growth City” group, along with eight other cities in this study as indicated in the graph below. Eagle Mountain is above average on personal wellbeing scores in this group, but there is no statistically significant difference among these cities.

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 Eagle Mountain

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

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 69% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 31% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% of respondents 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 - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 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 – 32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 39% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 61% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 61% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 39% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables for age, gender, college degree, income, and race/ethnicity were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among Eagle Mountain 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. Religion and income played particularly strong roles in wellbeing ratings.

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
+   
Wellbeing in Eagle Mountain        +
vs other religion and no religious preference
    
Connection to Nature          +
$150,000+ > $50,000-$74,999
 
Cultural Opportunities          +
$150,000+ > $50,000-$74,999
 
Education      +  +
vs other religion
+   
Leisure Time            
Living Standards          +   
Local Environmental Quality        +
vs no religious preference
   
Mental Health        +
vs other religion
  +   
Physical Health          +  
Safety & Security      +
vs other religion
 +  
Social Connections        +
vs other religion and no religious preference
 +
$150,000+ > under $50,000
 
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature          +
$150,000+ > $50,000-$74,999
 
Cultural Opportunities            
Education
vs 18-39
    +
vs other religion 
   
Leisure Time            
Living Standards         +
$150,000+ > under $50,000 
 
Local Environmental Quality      
vs no religious preference
   
Mental Health             
Physical Health         +
$150,000+ > under $50,000
 
Safety and Security            
Social Connections   +        

Wellbeing Matrix for Eagle Mountain

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Eagle Mountain. There is a positive relationship between wellbeing domain importance and wellbeing domain ratings: domains that are rated as more important also tend to be rated higher. There are no wellbeing domains that fall into the red quadrant, which identifies domains that are rated lower than average but have higher than average importance. However, Physical Health approaches this quadrant. 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: Eagle Mountain 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, Education, Physical Health, and Local Environmental Quality. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections, Leisure Time, Connection with Nature, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: None.

Community Action & Connections in Eagle Mountain

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Eagle Mountain. 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 Eagle Mountain, the average score was 3.43. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.08.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: In Eagle Mountain, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 3% of respondents; 2: 13% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 32% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents.

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: In Eagle Mountain, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 13% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% of respondents.

In terms of demographics, religion and race/ethnicity played significant roles (see Table 3). Respondents who identify as Latter-day Saints were more likely to indicate that people take action in Eagle Mountain in response to problems and opportunities and indicated higher levels of community connectedness. Comparatively, nonwhite or Latino residents were less likely to indicate that people take action in their community and indicated lower levels of community connectedness. Additionally, there is 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 Eagle Mountain take action?       vs other religion and no religious preference  
Do you feel connected to your community?       vs other religion and no religious preference  

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Eagle Mountain. Of the 9 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 66 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 233 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 64% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 154 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 48% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% 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, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Farmland and red rock were also positive for the majority of survey respondents.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, just over half of the survey respondents indicated that the presence of commercial development has a positive influence on their wellbeing. On the other hand, respondents indicated more negative perceptions of residential development as well as manufacturing and extractive industry.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Eagle Mountain 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, 2% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 70% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 63% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 19% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 27% indicated neither, 54% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 41% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 44% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 59% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 4% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Eagle Mountain

The majority of respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (72%) but were more widely distributed on the question of economic development, with 50% indicating they felt it was too slow, 32% indicating just right, and 15% indicating too fast. Compared to the other cities in the winter 2020 survey, Eagle Mountain ranked toward the top in terms of respondents indicating they felt population growth was too fast. On the other hand, Eagle Mountain is toward the middle when comparing the percentage of respondents that considered economic development too slow in their community.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Eagle Mountain? Data - Too Slow: 0% of respondents; Just Right: 22% of respondents; Too Fast: 72% of respondents; No Opinion: 5% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Eagle Mountain. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Eagle Mountain? Data - Too Slow: 50% of respondents; Just Right - 32% of respondents; Too Fast - 15% of respondents; No Opinion - 4% 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 Eagle Mountain

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 Eagle Mountain (see Table 4).

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Eagle Mountain Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 75% of respondents)
Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 20% of respondents)
Public Safety Substance Abuse
Recreation Opportunities Shopping Opportunities
Access to Public Land Electronic Devices
Air Quality Roads and Transportation
Access to Quality Food  

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

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Eagle Mountain Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Recreational land access, open space, trails, open views to nature (4) Affordability, Low taxes, economy, security (2) Too many condensed housing units, rush for high density (7) Fast growth, overcrowding, overdeveloped (5)
Clean, well-kept areas and homes, cleanliness (2) Dark and quiet night skies (2) Air quality, air pollution, dust (3) Single internet provider, TV Overpriced internet service (3)
Food, restaurants (2) Great community, sense of belonging (2)  Availability of major roads, very few in/out routes (2) Lack of code enforcement (2) 
Less traffic (2) Rec center (2) No rec center, civic center (2) Traffic (2)
Better water Communication within city for emergencies Commute times Construction trucks use engine breaks
Dog park EV charging stations Emergency response HOAs
Farmland Grocery stores Honesty in government employees Installing traffic lights everywhere in such a small town
Library Mass transit Lack of public transportation Liberal policies
Not having an HOA Quality schools Nationalism Not enough seniors
Resident safety Separation of church and state Over populated public shools Reduced speed limits
Stop lights Water quality Religious dominance Roads crowded, everyone speeds
Wildlife   Suburban sprawl  

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 170 respondents (34% of those that completed the survey). Many of the concerns of Eagle Mountain residents were related to the rate of growth and development in their city. This includes housing density, traffic, loss of open space, and insufficient infrastructure. However, many comments were about wanting more amenities like dining, shopping, and entertainment, as well as more recreation facilities and opportunities. Overall, Eagle Mountain residents want to responsibly manage population growth while bringing in more commerce and improving infrastructure.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Desire to slow down and manage growth
  • Calls for less high-density housing
  • Concerns about traffic and roads
  • Calls for more dining, shopping, and recreation opportunities
  • Lamenting the loss of farmland and open space

A Few Quotes

  • “I feel the houses in Eagle Mountain are being built at an extremely fast rate. I understand growth, but also love the small town feel of Eagle Mountain.”
  • “I love our city and I'm glad for some growth (especially Ridley's), but I hope that future growth is well planned and responsible so that we can somewhat maintain our small-town feel and preserve the natural beauty of the area.”
  • “The city needs more access to things like grocery stores, restaurants and shopping than it has; especially in city center. We see a growth in residents but not in other things.”
  • “Traffic is my biggest concern. The city is growing faster than the roads can handle it.”
Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 10 positive comments, 139 negative comments, 20 mixed comments.
Bar chart. Title: Major Themes. Theme: Growth/Development - mentioned 43 times; Housing Density - mentioned 32 times; Lacking Amenities - mentioned 31 times; Traffic - mentioned 27 times; Nature/Farmland - mentioned 27 times; Lacking Recreation – mentioned 16 times.