By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

Herriman Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

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

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. Herriman City advertised the survey via social media, newsletter, and the city website. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the survey (administered through Qualtrics), available from January 30, 2020 to March 3, 2020.

A total of 375 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Herriman resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Contact Information: Courtney Flint, courtney.flint@usu.edu, 435-797-8635
Acknowledgements: Utah League of Cities and Towns, Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, and Caitlyn Rogers

Respondent Characteristics

The vast majority of Herriman survey respondents (98.4%) were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 0 to 41 years with an average of 8 years. About half (50.9%) of the respondents lived in Herriman for 5 years or less.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. As the table shows, females, those age 40-49, those with a college degree, those with household incomes $100,00 and over, and those with children under age 18 in the household are overrepresented in the resulting survey sample. The survey respondents are more representative of Herriman residents in terms of race/ethnicity, and employment. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents are not fully representative of Herriman residents.

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

Demographic Characteristics Herriman
Online Survey 2020
(375 Respondents)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 47.3% 51.4%
Age 40-59 46.6% 37.0%
Age 60 or Over 6.0% 11.6%
Female 70.7% 53.1%
Male 29.3% 46.9%
No college degree 46.9% 61.4%
College degree (4-year) 53.1% 38.6%
Median household income NA $102,096
Income Under $50,000 6.7% 15.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 14.4% 16.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 17.0% 14.3%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 38.5% 29.4%
Income $150,000 or over 23.4% 23.9%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 56.6% NA
Other religion 17.5% NA
No religious preference 25.9% NA
White (non-Latino) 88.3% 83.0%
Nonwhite or Latino 11.7% 17.0%
Children under 18 in household 74.5% 60.8%
Employed (combined) 76.1% 72.2% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 3.2% (unemployed)
Other 23.3% 24.5% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Herriman

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Herriman. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Herriman was 3.99, with 77% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Herriman was 3.54.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 27% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Bountiful? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 41% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 16% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Herriman falls below the average of all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Herriman in the “Rapid Growth Cities” group, along with eight other cities in this study as indicated in the graph below. There is no statistically significant difference among cities in this group on personal wellbeing.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.

Wellbeing Domains in Herriman

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

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Living Standards - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 60% 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: Social Connections - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 55% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 45% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 76% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 24% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Herriman. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 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 - 28% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 72% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 33% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 53% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 47% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables of age, gender, college degree, income, and race/ethnicity were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among Herriman respondents. These relationships are shown in Table 2 and are based on a multivariate generalized linear model using the categories from Table 1, excluding children in household and employment.

Table 2
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing         +
$150,000+ >
under $50,000		  
Wellbeing in Herriman +
vs 40-59 		       +
$150,000+ >
under $50,000		  
Connection to Nature +          
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 40-59		          
Education +
   +      –  
Leisure Time            
Living Standards +
vs 40-59		 +      +  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health +
vs 40-59		       +
$150,000+ >
under $50,000		  
Physical Health +
vs 40-59		 +     +  
Safety & Security         +
$150,000+ >
under $50,000 		  
Social Connections            
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education    +         
Leisure Time           +
$150,000+ > under $50,000 and $75,000-$99,999		  
Living Standards          + 
$150,000+ >
$50,000-$74,999
  
Local Environmental Quality        –
vs no religious preference
    
Mental Health    +        
Physical Health            
Safety and Security    + -    +   
Social Connections             

Wellbeing Matrix for Herriman

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Herriman. Local environmental quality falls into the red quadrant, indicating that it was of higher than average importance, but rated lower than average. Leisure time approaches this quadrant as its importance was found to be close to the overall average domain importance while its rating falls below the overall average rating.  Mental Health and Physical Health also approach this quadrant as their overall rating scores are only slightly higher than the overall average score for domain rating, yet their importance is above the average importance. It is important to note that all domains except for cultural opportunities have an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Herriman Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Education. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, Leisure Time, and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality.

Community Action & Connections in Herriman

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Herriman. 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 Herriman, the average score was 3.53. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.95.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Herriman. Subtitle: In Herriman, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 3% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 35% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 17% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Herriman. Subtitle: In Herriman, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 12% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents.

In terms of demographics, those who indicated they are Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of action in Herriman in response to problems and opportunities (see Table 3). Latter-day Saints, those age 60 or older, and those with household incomes higher than $50,000 indicated higher levels of community connectedness. Additionally, a significant, positive relationship exists between individuals’ community connectedness and their overall personal wellbeing.

Table 3
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Do people in Herriman take action?       +
vs no religious preference		    
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 40-59		     +
vs no religious preference		  +
$150,000+ > under $50,000		  

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Herriman. Of the 12 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 92% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 8% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 65 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 77% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 173 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 87 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 49% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Farmland and red rock were positive for the majority of survey respondents.

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

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Herriman 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, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 23% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 62% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 20% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 52% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 55% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 49% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 55% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Herriman

Survey respondents overwhelmingly indicated they felt population growth was too fast (91%) but were more widely distributed on the question of economic development, with 48% indicating they felt it was too slow, 25% indicating just right, and 23% indicating too fast. Compared to the other cities in the winter 2020 survey, Herriman ranked the highest in terms of respondents indicating they felt population growth was too fast. On the other hand, Herriman is toward the middle of all study cities when comparing the percentage of respondents that considered economic development too slow in their community.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Herriman? Data - Too Slow: 1% of respondents; Just Right: 7% of respondents; Too Fast: 91% of respondents; No Opinion: 2% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Herriman? Data - Too Slow: 48% of respondents; Just Right - 25% of respondents; Too Fast - 23% of respondents; No Opinion - 4% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth in Sampled Utah Cities. Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 91% indicated too fast; Lehi - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 83% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 80% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Draper - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Tooele - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 70% indicated too fast. North Logan - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 66% indicated too fast. Moab - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 64% indicated too fast; Nibley - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 60% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nephi - 6% of respondents indicated too slow, 53% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 12% of respondents indicated too slow, 35% indicated too fast; Richfield - 14% of respondents indicated too slow, 18% indicated too fast; Delta - 31% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Helper - 22% of respondents indicated too slow, 8% indicated too fast.

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development in Sampled Utah Cities. Draper - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 44% indicated too fast; Lehi - 9% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nibley - 19% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Moab - 24% of respondents indicated too slow, 62% indicated too fast; North Logan - 29% of respondents indicated too slow, 19% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 35% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 44% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 45% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 47% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Herriman - 48% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated too slow, 15% indicated too fast; Helper - 52% of respondents indicated too slow, 2% indicated too fast; Nephi - 54% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 56% of respondents indicated too slow, 11% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 58% of respondents indicated too slow, 12% indicated too fast; Richfield - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 5% indicated too fast; Tooele - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 10% indicated too fast; Delta - 80% of respondents indicated too slow, 0% indicated too fast.

Risks and Assets for Wellbeing in Herriman

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

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Herriman Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 70% of respondents)		 Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 25% of respondents)
Public Safety Substance Abuse
Recreation Opportunities Electronic Devices
Access to Quality Food Affordable Housing
Access to Public Land Air Quality
Opportunities for Youth Roads and Transportation
Access to Healthcare  

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

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Herriman Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Accessibility Adequate infrastructure High density housing/development (15) Overpopulation, rapid growth, crowding (15)
Dog park Friendly neighbors Olympia Hills (2) Schools overcrowded (2)
High density housing Landscape Airplane traffic and noise Apartments
Low traffic New roads City's law enforcement Cultural desert
    Development Lack of trust in general plan
    Religion "Republicans, Trumpers, Livertarians"
    Sense of community Street lanes
    Traffic Weather

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 136 respondents (36% of those that completed the survey). These comments indicate that Herriman respondents were primarily concerned with issues related to the growth and development of the city. Many shared perspectives that the existing infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and natural resources, cannot handle the increase in high-density housing. They felt that residential growth is outpacing commercial development. Traffic was a major concern and was often mentioned in conjunction with population growth. A sentiment shared by a few people was that the social climate of Herriman is unwelcoming and hostile to those not belonging to majority groups. Some people expressed frustration at the perceived lack of planning and concern for the citizens on the part of the City. Many specifically mentioned that they opposed the Olympia Hills development, citing reasons such as unwanted population growth and traffic increases.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Dislike of high-density housing
  • Growth is too fast
  • Crowded roads and traffic
  • Hostile social climate
  • Need commercial development
  • Opposition to Olympia Hills development

A Few Quotes:

  • “Herriman is one of the best places to live. We have loved the rural feel of the city but it’s growing too fast. We need a good mix of low medium and high density but all we are seeing is high density.”
  • “Need to focus on sustainable growth plans for our city including supportive infrastructure like commercial development and more roads.”
  • “Responsible growth is very important to the well-being of everyone in Herriman.”
  • “I think we have a real lack of cultural and local landmarks. All stores and restaurants going in are part of national franchises and chains. We need more local businesses that are a real part of the community.”

    Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 2 positive comments, 116 negative comments, 18 mixed comments.

    Bar chart. Title: Major Concerns. Concern: Growth – mentioned 72 times; Housing Density – mentioned 68 times; Traffic – mentioned 35 times; Social Climate – mentioned 16 times; Natural Resources – mentioned 15 times; Economic Amenities – mentioned 14 times; Olympia Hills – mentioned 10 times.

 

On This Page