By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Herriman Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Herriman City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project and has been involved since 2020. 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 Herriman survey with initial information on changes since 2020 and 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, Herriman City advertised the survey via newsletter, social media, city website, and electronic marquee signs. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

 How many people responded?
  • 231 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 77% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 375 responses. The 2020 Herriman Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.

  • The adult population of Herriman was estimated at 23,942 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 231 survey responses represent 1.0% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.42%. 

Key Findings in Herriman

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Herriman were below average among 29 study cities. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Safety and Security

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Leisure Time

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 48% of respondents. Wellbeing in Herriman declined in the last year for 54% of respondents. Community wellbeing was more likely to decline for male respondents, those without a college degree and those living in Herriman for more than 5 years. 

Manufacturing and Extractive Industry and Residential Development were seen to have negative influences on wellbeing for the majority of respondents, though Natural Landscapes were highly positive.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth in Herriman was too fast. Respondents were more divided about the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Herriman were:

  • Roads and Transportation (90% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (78% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (69% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Recreation Opportunities (67% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (67% Moderate or Major Concern)

Many also mentioned concern about too much high-density housing in their comments.

Adding capacity to major roads and intersections was ranked as the top transportation need by 64% of respondents.

What do people value most about Herriman ? 
Small town feel, good trails, access to nature, good location, and feelings of safety.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Herriman  99.1%
Part Time Residents of Herriman  0.9%
Length of Residency - Range 1-43 years
Length of Residency - Average 8 years
Length of Residency - Median 5 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 53.2%

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, people who are married were particularly overrepresented and people age 18-39 were particularly underrepresented, but otherwise, the 2021 respondents were quite representative of Herriman. 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 Herriman

Demographic Characteristics Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2020 (N=375) 2021 (N=231)
Age 18-29 11.2% 12.9% 23.8%
Age 30-39 26.5% 34.3% 27.5%
Age 40-49 20.8% 34.8% 23.1%
Age 50-59 16.0% 10.7% 13.9%
Age 60-69 13.4% 6.2% 6.2%
Age 70 or over 12.1% 1.1% 5.5%
Adult female 70.7% 66.9% 53.1%
Adult male 29.3% 33.1% 46.9%
No college degree 46.9% 52.2% 61.4%
College degree (4-year) 53.1% 47.8% 38.6%
Median household income NA NA $102,096
Income under $25,000 1.0% 0.6% 3.3%
Income $25,000-$49,999 5.8% 4.7% 12.6%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 14.4% 12.9% 16.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 17.0% 15.3% 14.3%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 38.5% 41.2% 29.4%
Income $150,000 or over 23.4% 25.3% 23.9%
Latter-day Saint 56.6% 54.4% NA
Other religion 17.5% 18.1% NA
No religious preference 25.9% 27.5% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 7.9% 9.0%
White 83.3% 95.3% 86.7%
Nonwhite 11.7% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 4.7% 13.3%
Married 89.7% 89.3% 64.7%
Children under 18 in household 74.5% 75.3% 60.8%
Employed (combined) 76.1% 72.9% 72.2%
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 0.6% 3.2%
Other 23.3% 26.5% 24.5%
Own home/owner occupied NA 91.0% 85.0%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 9.0% 15.0%

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 3.86, with 73% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Herriman was 3.47 with 54% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Herriman Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 52% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 21% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Herriman Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Herriman? Data - 1 Very Poor: 5% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 11% of respondents

The graph below compares 2020 and 2021 survey data for personal wellbeing score and community wellbeing. The number of respondents differed between years and individuals are not tracked from year to year. The average personal wellbeing score declined from 3.99 to 3.86 and the average community wellbeing score declined from 3.54 to 3.47 in the last year.

Scatter Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing from 2020-2021 in Herriman. Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1= very poor to 5= excellent. Data – Community wellbeing in 2020: 3.54; Community wellbeing in 2021: 3.47; Personal Wellbeing in 2020: 3.99; Personal Wellbeing in 2021: 3.86.

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked in early 2021 if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that personal wellbeing declined for 48% of Herriman respondents and 54% indicated that wellbeing in Herriman declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Herriman. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 8%; Declined slightly: 40%; No change: 31%; Improved slightly: 17%; Improved Substantially: 4%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Herriman. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Herriman changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 13%; Declined slightly: 41%; No change: 35%; Improved slightly: 8%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Herriman as a Rapid Growth City. Within this cluster of cities, Herriman falls below average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Herriman is statistically significantly lower than North Logan, Nibley, Vineyard, and Hyde Park in terms of overall personal wellbeing and is significantly lower than Spanish Fork, North Logan, Vineyard, and Hyde Park in terms of 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 Herriman

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 Herriman were Living Standards, Safety and Security, and Education. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Living Standards.

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: Safety and Security - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards – 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 46% 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: Social Connections - 58% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 42% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 80% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 20% 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? 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 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% 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: Living Standards - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% 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 - 57% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 43% rated as important or very important.

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. Living Standards and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Local Environmental Quality and Leisure Time fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that they were of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Physical Health and Mental Health approach this quadrant as their importance score was above average, but ratings are near the overall average rating.

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. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time, 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 and Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Connection to Nature for 18% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Herriman. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 70% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 28% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 65% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 34% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 61% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 34% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 52% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 39% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 43% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 43% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 14% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 36% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 46% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education - 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 62% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security - 24% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 69% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Community wellbeing was more likely to decline for male respondents, those without a college degree, and those living in Herriman more than 5 years.

  • Cultural opportunities were more likely to decline for those with a college degree.

  • Education was less likely to decline for females.

  • Leisure time was more likely to decline for Latter-day Saints than Agnostics/Atheists/No Preference. 

  • Safety and security was more likely to decline for those age 40-59 than age 60+.



The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Herriman residents. Note that the survey method was different in 2019 (with iPads in public places) and the number of respondents changed over time.

Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Herriman. Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data – Category: Safety and Security- 3.8 in 2020, 3.6 in 2021; Category: Education- 3.65 in 2020, 3.5 in 2021; Category: Connection with Nature 3.35 in 2020, 3.25 in 2020; Category: Living Standards- 3.9 in 2020, 3.75 in 2021; Category: Physical Health- 3.55 in 2020, 3.35 in 2021; Category: Leisure Time- 3.3 in 2020, 3.2 in 2021; Category: Mental Health- 3.55 in 2020, 3.4 in 2021; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 3.25 in 2020, 3.2 in 2021; Category: Social Connections- 3.35 in 2020, 3.2 in 2021; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2.7 in 2020, 2.6 in 2021.

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 2021 Herriman respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model (significance based on p < 0.1). 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 Herriman

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing            
Wellbeing in Herriman   +       +
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities       + vs A/A/NRP     
Education     + + vs A/A/NRP     
Leisure Time       + vs A/A/NRP  +
Over $150,000 > Under $75,000		  
Living Standards   + +   +
Over $150,000 > Under $75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health            
Physical Health            
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       – vs Other      
Cultural Opportunities   + + – vs A/A/NRP     
Education     +      
Leisure Time         +  
Living Standards   +        
Local Environmental Quality +

     – vs A/A/NRP     
Mental Health   +        
Physical Health   +        
Safety and Security   +        
Social Connections   +
         
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Herriman

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection 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 3.05. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.72.

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: 9% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 24% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Herriman. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Herriman as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 14% of respondents; 2: 27% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents

Female respondents reported higher perceptions that people in Herriman take action than males. Latter-day Saints indicated higher levels of community connection than Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. 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 Herriman take action?   +        
Do you feel connected to your community?       +
vs A/A/NRP		    

A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Herriman. Of the 16 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 39 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 87% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 13% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 102 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 75% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 37 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 57% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% 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. Herriman is in the lower half on 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 Herriman was 2.74. Church group activities (50%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by contacting a public official about an issue (44%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Herriman. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 50% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 34% of respondents indicated yes to civic or charity group activities. 44% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 34% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 28% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 37% of respondents indicated yes to school group activities. 3% 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. Extractive industry was indicated to have a particularly negative influence on wellbeing.

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: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 76% 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: Commercial Development - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 35% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 52% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 13% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 57% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 52% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively. Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Vineyard. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Vineyard? Data – 0% of respondents rated too slow; 25% of respondents rated just right; 68% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The vast majority of Herriman survey respondents (90%) indicated they felt population growth was too fast. Regarding the pace of economic development, respondents were more divided with 39% indicating it is too fast, 28% indicating it is too slow, and 27% indicating just right.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Herriman? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 6% of respondents rated just right; 90% of respondents rated too fast; 3% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Herriman? Data – 28% of respondents rated too slow; 27% of respondents rated just right; 39% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Herriman 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 Herriman 

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Herriman. Roads and Transportation, Air Quality, and Water Supply were the top three concerns with 76% to 90% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Herriman. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Herriman, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Roads and Transportation- 10% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 90% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Category: Substance Abuse - 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern;

Other concerns were raised by 56 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Other Concerns Mentioned

Too much high-density housing/multi-family housing (26)

Population, population density, overcrowding (8)

Traffic (6)

Growth, construction (2)

No east-west roadway between 134th S and Porter Rockwell. Need to open up 144th and 150th to account for population growth, not enough roads (2)

Bullying at school (1)

Declining under Biden (1)

Drug dealing neighbor (1)

Education (1)

Election integrity (1) 

Have lost what it was – could’ve done better (1) 

Insufficient infrastructure (1) 

Local election officials (1) 

No diversity of building types in HTC (1)

Number of cars parked street-side and causing safety hazards (1) 

Olympia Hills (1) 

Open space (1) 

Property protection (1) 

Restrictions and “mandates” (1) 

Sound pollution (1) 

Transportation out of city (1) 

Well thought out development (1) 

Youth mental health support (1) 

  

Transportation and Commuting in Herriman

On transportation

The survey asked, “Thinking specifically about transportation as you look to the future of Herriman, please rank the following in the order of importance to you:”

  • Adding capacity to major roads and intersections
  • Making transportation corridors and intersections more visually appealing with landscaping or urban design elements
  • Working with UTA to improve transit service
  • Enhancing bicycle and pedestrian paths, sidewalks, and trails
  • Improving and/or adding crosswalks to provide safe walking/biking routes
  • Improving the connections between neighborhoods and neighboring communities



Adding Capacity to Major Roads and Intersections was Ranked #1 by 64% of Respondents

There was little differentiation among the other options, though visual appeal and working with UTA were ranked the lowest options.

57% of Herriman Respondents Commute for Work

 

96% Commute Via Personal Vehicle

 

Average Commute 29 Minutes
(Range = 2-60 Minutes)

There was no statistically significant correlation between commuting or commute time and overall personal wellbeing.

Summary of Open Comments

The survey included opportunities in the survey were provided for respondents to share their ideas about Herriman 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 in response to “Please tell us what you value most about living in Herriman ”


Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Herriman. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data – Category: Social Climate - 59 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include small town feel, connected, friendly, family-friendly; Category: Activities- 41 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include good trails, good parks, abundant cultural opportunities, abundant recreation; Category: Natural Resources - 37 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include nature, farmland/open space, good water; Category: City Character- 34 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include good location, well-kept city, quiet and peaceful, other; Category: Other Themes Mentioned -60 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include feels safe, good housing, good economy, well-governed, good school, good pace of growth, good police

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.