By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

East Carbon Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

East Carbon City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2021. 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. More details can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 East Carbon survey as well as 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 February 2021, East Carbon City advertised the survey via social media and local news media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 104 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 effort with 85% complete responses.
  • The adult population of East Carbon was estimated at 1,110 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The survey responses represent 9.4% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.15%.

Key Findings in East Carbon

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in East Carbon were below average among 29 study cities. Personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for male respondents.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Connection with Nature
  • Mental Health
  • Leisure Time

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Physical Health
  • Mental Health
  • Living Standards

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Safety and Security
  • Local Environmental Quality

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 34% of respondents. Wellbeing in East Carbon declined in the last year for 49% of respondents.

Perceptions that residents take action in East Carbon were lower than in any other study area.

The majority of respondents felt the Pace of Economic Development was too slow in East Carbon.

Top concerns for the future of East Carbon were:

  • Opportunities for Youth (92% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (91% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (85% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Recreation Opportunities (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (73% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about East Carbon? 
Sense of community, small-town feel, access to nature, and the quiet and peacefulness.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of East Carbon 91.3%
Part Time Residents of East Carbon 8.7%
Length of Residency - Range 0-71 years
Length of Residency - Average 24 years
Length of Residency - Median 18 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 25.2%

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 quite representative of East Carbon. People who are married and who are employed were particularly overrepresented and people age 18-29 were 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 East Carbon

Demographic Characteristics East Carbon Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=104)
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-29 6.8% 17.6%
Age 30-39 15.9% 13.2%
Age 40-49 26.1% 10.2%
Age 50-59 15.9% 19.2%
Age 60-69 22.7% 18.5%
Age 70 or over 12.5% 21.3%
Adult female 75.0% 47.5%
Adult male 25.0% 52.5%
No college degree 79.5% 90.6%
College degree (4-year) 20.4% 9.4%
Median household income NA $29,867
Income under $25,000 20.7% 34.4%
Income $25,000-$49,999 34.5% 33.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 21.8% 13.9%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 12.6% 10.7%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 6.9% 7.3%
Income $150,000 or over 3.4% 0.5%
Latter-day Saint 23.5% NA
Other religion 50.6% NA
No religious preference 25.9% NA
Hispanic/Latino 13.8% 18.8%
White 89.0% 94.3%
Nonwhite 11.0% 5.7%
Married 73.9% 49.9%
Children under 18 in household 40.9% 33.7%
Employed (combined) 50.0% 43.1%
Out of work and looking for work 3.4% 3.7%
Other 46.6% 52.3%
Own home/owner occupied 85.2% 68.7%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 14.8% 31.3%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in East Carbon

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in East Carbon. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in East Carbon was 3.82, with 70% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in East Carbon was 2.98 with 35% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 21% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in East Carbon? Data - 1 Very Poor: 12% of respondents; 2: 23% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 10% of respondents

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 34% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 49% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in East Carbon declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in East Carbon. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 4%; Declined slightly: 30%; No change: 50%; Improved slightly: 13%; Improved Substantially: 3%.
Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in East Carbon. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in East Carbon changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 16%; Declined slightly: 33%; No change: 42%; Improved slightly: 8%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies East Carbon as a Traditional Rural Community (we have combined these with Rural Hub/Resource Communities). Within this cluster of cities, East Carbon was below average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. East Carbon was not statistically significantly different from any other cities in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it was statistically significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster except for Moab, Price, and Vernal 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 East Carbon

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 East Carbon were Connection with Nature, Mental Health, and Leisure Time. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Physical Health, Mental Health, and Living Standards.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 62% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 38% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 61% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 39% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 60% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 65% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 35% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 77% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 23% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in East Carbon. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? 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: 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: 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: Living Standards - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 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 - 29% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 47% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 53% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for East Carbon

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from East Carbon. Mental Health and Living Standards were highly important and highly rated. Safety and Security and Local Environmental Quality fell into the red quadrant, indicating that they were of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Physical Health approaches this quadrant as its importance was close to the overall average domain importance, but rating fell near the overall average rating.

Scatterplot. Title: East Carbon 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: Mental Health, Living Standard, and Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Leisure time; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Education, Social Connections, Cultural opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Local Environmental Quality.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding:

  • Social Connections
  • Cultural Opportunities

No change was reported by the majority of East Carbon respondents for all other domains.


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in East Carbon. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 62% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 37% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 52% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 48% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 33% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 66% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 57% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 72% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 66% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 26% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category:  Local Environmental Quality- 18% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 78% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 15% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 81% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

The following relationships were found in East Carbon between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Personal Wellbeing was more likely to decline for male respondents.

  • Living standards were more likely to decline for those age 18-39 and those living in East Carbon 5 years or less.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, and income were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among East Carbon respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model using unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Please note that the number of responses is not fully representative of East Carbon. The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Color indicates the strongest relationships (p< .05).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in East Carbon

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing       +
vs A/A/NRP 
   
Wellbeing in East Carbon – vs 18-39     vs A/A/NRP     
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education    + +
     
Leisure Time      +      
Living Standards vs 40-59     vs Other  +
 
Local Environmental Quality    +        
Mental Health            
Physical Health         vs A/A/NRP     
Safety & Security            
Social Connections            
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature    +        
Cultural Opportunities            
Education
         
Leisure Time       +
 
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health  +          
Physical Health            
Safety and Security            
Social Connections – vs 18-39  +   – vs Other &
vs A/A/NRP 
    
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in East Carbon

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in East Carbon. 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 East Carbon, the average score was 2.60. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.91.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in East Carbon. Subtitle: In East Carbon, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 20% of respondents; 2: 33% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 18% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in East Carbon. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to East Carbon as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 20% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 19% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% of respondents

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 East Carbon was 2.54. Contacting a public official about an issue was the most common activity reported by 51% of respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in East Carbon. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 34% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 44% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 51% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 38% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 37% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 35% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 15% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

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. East Carbon is low on perceived community action, but in the mid- range 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.

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 generally have a positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, East Carbon respondents were somewhat more divided.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in East Carbons 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, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 9% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 27% indicated neither, 64% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 10% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 73% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 73% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 19% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 15% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 35% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Respondents from East Carbon were divided on population growth with 35% indicating they felt population growth is just right and 35% indicating it is too slow. On the pace of economic development, the majority said it was too slow (79%).

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in East Carbon? Data – 35% of respondents rated too slow; 35% of respondents rated just right; 9% of respondents rated too fast; 21% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in East Carbon? Data – 79% of respondents rated too slow; 15% of respondents rated just right; 1% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how East Carbon 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 East Carbon

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of East Carbon. Opportunities for Youth, Substance Abuse, Water Supply and Employment Opportunities were the top four concerns with at least 84% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns

Title: Concerns in East Carbon. Subtitle: As you look to the future of East Carbon, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Affordable Housing- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Roads and Transportation- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 8% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 92% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 91% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse - 9% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 91% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 23 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Drugs and Dissatisfaction with City Personnel and Leaders were the two most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned

Drug abuse problem, drug dealers (7)

Dissatisfaction with city personnel and leaders (4)

No trust in law enforcement (3)

Crime (2)

Deterioration of homes, city appearance (2)

Lack of unity, need more involvement by residents (2)

Open access for fishing and camping to draw visitors, reservoir access (2)

Religious intolerance (2)

Access to land (1)

Animal control (1)

City has gone down hill (1)

Dirty parks (1)

Division between haves and have nots (1)

Lack of interest in the city in growth (1)

Local business (1)

Need to increase water supply (1)

People moving into East Carbon (1)

Protecting community from COVID (1)

Taxes (1)

 

Summary of Open Comments

The survey included opportunities in the survey were provided for respondents to share their ideas about East Carbon 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 will be added to the report later in 2021.

Key Themes for “Please tell us what you value most about living in East Carbon”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in East Draper. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 48 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Connected, Small Town Feel,  Friendly, family-friendly;  Category: City Character- 34 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Quiet and Peaceful, Good Location, Freedom and Privacy, Historical/Well-Kept City, Good Quality of life ; Category: Natural Resources- 36 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Abundant Recreation, Good Air Quality, Farmland/Open Space, Nice Climate;  Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 23 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Feels safe, Good Economy,  Good Housing, Not much traffic, Good Jobs, Good Police, Other.

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.