By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Ephraim Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Ephraim 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. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 Ephraim 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 January and February 2021, Ephraim City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter, city website and social media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 101 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 effort with 92% complete responses. 

  • The adult population of Ephraim was estimated at 5,033 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The survey responses represent 2.0% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.65%.

Key Findings in Ephraim

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Ephraim were below average among 29 study cities. Wellbeing ratings were higher for those with higher incomes.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Leisure Time

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 45% of respondents.

Top concerns for the future of Ephraim were:

  • Water Supply (75% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Quality Food (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (73% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (73% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (71% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Shopping Opportunities (70% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Ephraim? 
Small-town feel and access to nature.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Ephraim 92.1%
Part Time Residents of Ephraim 7.9%
Length of Residency - Range 0.25-72 years
Length of Residency - Average 19 years
Length of Residency - Median 13 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 29.3%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of Ephraim. People having at least a 4-year college degree, are married, have children in household, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. 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 Ephraim

Demographic Characteristics Ephraim Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=101)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-29 15.4% 51.2%
Age 30-39 26.4% 13.2%
Age 40-49 26.4% 12.1%
Age 50-59 7.7% 6.3%
Age 60-69 15.4% 8.5%
Age 70 or over 8.8% 8.7%
Adult female 56.0% 58.3%
Adult male 42.9% 41.7%
No college degree 42.9% 67.7%
College degree (4-year) 57.2% 32.3%
Median household income NA $56,750
Income under $25,000 6.7% 18.6%
Income $25,000-$49,999 15.8% 28.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 37.1% 15.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 28.1% 17.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 10.1% 15.8%
Income $150,000 or over 2.2% 3.9%
Latter-day Saint 80.9% NA
Other religion 11.2% NA
No religious preference 7.9% NA
Hispanic/Latino 3.4% 7.9%
White 93.3% 90.1%
Nonwhite 6.7% 9.9%
Married 79.8% 50.5%
Children under 18 in household 55.6% 42.2%
Employed (combined) 72.5% 61.4%
Out of work and looking for work 1.1% 3.6%
Other 26.4% 35.0%
Own home/owner occupied 80.0% 57.9%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 20.0% 42.1%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Ephraim

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Ephraim. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Ephraim was 3.86, with 73% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Ephraim was 3.57 with 57% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 54% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 19% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Ephraim? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 8% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 14% 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 45% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 43% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Ephraim declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Ephraim. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 9%; Declined slightly: 36%; No change: 28%; Improved slightly: 19%; Improved Substantially: 7%.
Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Ephraim. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Ephraim changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 8%; Declined slightly: 35%; No change: 38%; Improved slightly: 16%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

For this study, we have placed Ephraim in the Rapid Growth cluster of Utah cities (though it could also be considered in the Rural Hub cluster). Within this cluster of cities, Ephraim falls below the Rapid Growth cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and for the average community wellbeing score. Ephraim is statistically significantly lower than North Logan, Nibley, Vineyard, and Hyde Park in terms of overall personal wellbeing, and significantly lower than Spanish Fork, North Logan, Vineyard and Hyde Park 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 Ephraim

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 Ephraim were Safety and Security, Local Environmental Quality, and Connection to Nature . The three most important wellbeing domains were Physical Health, Mental Health and Safety and Security.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Ephraim Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 19% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 81% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 70% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 30% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Ephraim. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security 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 - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 26% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 74% of respondents 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: Connection with Nature - 25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 26% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 74% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 30% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 48% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 52% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Ephraim

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Ephraim. Safety and Security was highly important and highly rated. Physical Health, Mental Health and Leisure Time fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that it was of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Living Standards approaches this quadrant as its importance was higher than average, but rating fell near the overall average rating. Please note that all domains except for Cultural Opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Ephraim Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, living Standards. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality, Connection with Nature, Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections, Cultural opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time, Physical Health, and Mental Health.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

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

  • Social Connections
  • Cultural Opportunities
  • Mental Health

No change was reported by most Ephraim respondents for these areas:

  • Safety and Security
  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Living Standards.

Improvements were reported in Leisure Time and Connection to Nature for 16% of respondents.


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Ephraim. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 79% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 19% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 68% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 32% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 62% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 35% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 40% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 45% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 16% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 51% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 7% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 26% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 58% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 16% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 36% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 60% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 18% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 77% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 16% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 78% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 18% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 77% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Living Standards were more likely to decline for those living in Ephraim for more than 5 years.

  • Mental Health was more likely to decline for those indicating their religion as Latter-day Saint and less likely to decline for those age 60+ (versus those age 40-59) and for those with higher incomes.

  • Physical Health was more likely to decline for those indicating their religion as Latter-day Saint.

  • Social Connections were more likely to decline for respondents under age 60.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among Ephraim respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Income was influential in wellbeing ratings, but not in importance of wellbeing domains. Please note that the number of responses is not fully representative of Ephraim. 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 Ephraim

  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 40-59 +   + vs A/A/NRP  +  
Wellbeing in Ephraim + vs 40-59     – vs Other  +
Over $150,000 >
Under $50,000 		  
Connection to Nature         +  
Cultural Opportunities     –   +
– 
Education            
Leisure Time +        +
 
Living Standards         +    
Local Environmental Quality         +   
Mental Health +
 +     +   
Physical Health + +   + vs A/A/NRP  +
 
Safety & Security         +
 
Social Connections + vs 40-59   –   +
Over $100,000 >
under $50,000		  
  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 – vs 40-59          
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health           +
Physical Health      + + vs A/A/NRP    
Safety and Security            
Social Connections             
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

 

Community Action & Connections in Ephraim

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Ephraim. 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 Ephraim, the average score was 3.17. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.13.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Ephraim. Subtitle: In Ephraim, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 3% of respondents; 2: 25% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Ephraim. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Ephraim as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 17% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 18% of respondents

Those age 60+ were more likely to indicate higher perceptions of local action than those of other age groups and they also reported higher levels of community connection than those age 40-59. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Color indicates the strongest relationships (p< .05).


Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Ephraim take action? +          
Do you feel connected to your community? + vs 40-59          


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Ephraim. Of the 4 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 21 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 51 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 63% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 17 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 35% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 65% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.
Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Ephraim was 2.75. Church group activities were the most common activity for respondents (70%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Ephraim. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 70% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 37% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 34% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 47% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 34% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 33% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 19% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

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

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Ephraim 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, 0% indicated neither, 100% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 6% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 57% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 73% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 40% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 18% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 61% indicated neither, 21% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 61% indicated neither, 8% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Nearly half of Ephraim survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (49%), followed by 35% who indicated it was too fast and 6% who said too slow. Respondents were a bit more distributed on the pace of economic development, with 43% indicating just right, 39% indicating too fast, and 13% indicating too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Ephraim? Data – 6% of respondents rated too slow; 49% of respondents rated just right; 35% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Ephraim? Data – 39% of respondents rated too slow; 43% of respondents rated just right; 13% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Ephraim 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 Ephraim

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Ephraim. Water Supply, Access to Quality Food, Employment Opportunities, and Opportunities for Youth were the top four concerns with 73%-75% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Ephraim. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Ephraim, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Affordable Housing- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Roads and Transportation- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse - 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 17 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Other Concerns Mentioned

Poorly kept homes, yards (2)

Art culture (1)

City unwelcoming to outsiders and non-LDS people (1)

Civility (1)

Education (1)

Growth degrades quality of life (1)

High density housing (1)

Ice skating rink (1)

Jobs for college students (1)

Lack of quality and variety of food/groceries (1)

Litter along highways (1)

Park (1)
Police (1)

Public transportation (1)

Things to do socially outside of church, adult activities (1)

  

Summary of Open Comments

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

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

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Ephraim. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 68 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small Town Feel, Connected, Friendly, family-friendly; Category: Natural Resources- 35 Mentions- boxes largest to smallest include Natural Resources, Good Air Quality, Farmland/Open Space, Good Water Quality. Category: City Character- 27 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Quiet and Peaceful, Good Quality of life Category: Safety Mentions- 19 times, boxes largest to smallest include feels safe, Not much crime; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 38 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Access to education, Good Location, Abundant Recreation, Local Leadership, Low traffic, Good Pace of growth, 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.