By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Hurricane Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Hurricane 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 Hurricane City survey with 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 January and February 2021, Hurricane City advertised the survey via social media and public engagement app Next Door. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 271 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 81% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 254 responses and the 2019 iPad survey had 55 responses. The full Hurricane Wellbeing Survey reports from 2020 and 2019 are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Hurricane was estimated at 12,740 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 271 survey responses in 2021 represent 2.1% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.89%. 

Key Findings in Hurricane

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Hurricane were above average among 29 study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards
  • Mental Health
  • Local Environmental Quality

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 37% of respondents.

The vast majority of respondents felt Population Growth in Hurricane was too fast. Respondents were more divided about the Pace of Economic Development, but nearly half felt it was also too fast.

Top concerns for the future of Hurricane were:

  • Water Supply (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (73% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (72% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (71% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (69% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Hurricane?
Small town feel, access to nature, quiet and peacefulness, feelings of safety, and abundant recreation opportunities.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Hurricane 98.2%
Part Time Residents of Hurricane 1.8%
Length of Residency - Range 0-72 years
Length of Residency - Average 14 years
Length of Residency - Median 10 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 34.8%

Hurricane Neighborhood Representation in Survey
North Area 15.1% Sky Mountain 12.2%
Hurricane Old Town 14.4% Dixie Springs 14.8%
Hurricane South Town 12.5% Sand Hollow 1.8%
Sky Ridge 15.5% Other 4.4%
Hurricane Fields 9.2%    

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, 2021 survey respondents were not fully representative of Hurricane. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, and are married were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those with household incomes less than $25,000 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 Hurricane

Demographic Characteristics iPad Survey Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2019 (N=55) 2020 (N=254) 2021 (N=271)
Age 18-29 9.1% 12.5% 8.2% 15.0%
Age 30-39 23.6% 22.7% 15.0% 20.8%
Age 40-49 16.4% 22.7% 16.4% 16.1%
Age 50-59 7.3% 16.2% 15.9% 14.6%
Age 60-69 21.8% 19.0% 24.1% 17.6%
Age 70 or over 21.8% 6.9% 20.5% 15.9%
Adult female 67.3% 72.1% 63.6% 46.8%
Adult male 32.7% 27.9% 35.9% 53.2% 
No college degree 69.1% 69.0% 63.6% 82.1%
College degree (4-year) 30.9% 31.0% 36.4% 17.9%
Median household income NA NA NA $57,882
Income under $25,000 7.8% 9.2% 8.4% 18.4%
Income $25,000-$49,999 31.4% 21.3% 17.3% 24.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 23.5% 25.1% 29.2% 19.2%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 13.7% 18.4% 20.8% 16.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 13.7% 17.4% 17.3% 12.3%
Income $150,000 or over 9.8% 8.7% 7.0% 9.4%
Latter-day Saint 61.5% 47.5% 54.9% NA
Other religion 13.5% 24.2% 26.8% NA
No religious preference 25.0% 28.4% 18.3% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA NA 1.8% 8.3%
White 89.1% 94.9% 96.7% 93.1%
Nonwhite 10.9% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 5.1% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 3.3% 6.9%
Married NA 82.3% 83.0% 58.6%
Children under 18 in household NA 49.3% 34.9% 36.1%
Employed (combined) NA 58.8% 50.9% 56.6%
Out of work and looking for work NA 0.0% 0.9% 1.0% 
Other NA 41.2% 48.2% 42.4%
Own home/owner occupied NA NA 84.9% 72.3%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA NA 15.0% 27.7%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Hurricane

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Hurricane. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Hurricane was 4.08 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Hurricane was 3.75 with 64% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Hurricane. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 32% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Hurricane. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Hurricane? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 21% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from Hurricane, the average personal wellbeing score decreased slightly from 4.09 to 4.08 and the community wellbeing score increased slightly from 3.74 to 3.75. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing From 2020-2021 in Hurricane. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.09, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.74, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.08, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.75

In 2019, a 1-10 scale was used for personal and community wellbeing.

Hurricane ’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      7.80

Community Wellbeing in Hurricane              7.35

Converted to 1-5 scale, Hurricane ’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      4.09

Community Wellbeing in Hurricane              3.89

We don't include these in the graph because there is uncertainty in the conversion of scales.

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

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 37% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 38% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Hurricane declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Hurricane. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; Declined slightly: 30%; No change: 37%; Improved slightly: 20%; Improved Substantially: 6%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Hurricane. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Hurricane changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; Declined slightly: 31%; No change: 46%; Improved slightly: 14%; Improved Substantially: 1%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Neighborhoods

Wellbeing scores varied across neighborhoods in Hurricane, but these differences were not statistically significant.

Neighborhood Average Score for Overall Personal Wellbeing Average Score for Wellbeing in Hurricane
Sand Hollow 4.40 4.60
North Area 4.27 3.80
Dixie Springs 4.25 4.00
Sky Ridge 4.10 3.67
Sky Mountain 4.03 3.72
Hurricane South Town 3.97 3.88
Hurricane F ields 3.96 3.58
Hurricane Old Town 3.92 3.49
Other 3.92 3.55


Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Hurricane as a Rapid Growth City. Within this cluster of cities, Hurricane is the above average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Hurricane is not statistically significantly different from other cities in the cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing and is statistically significantly higher than Herriman and lower than 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 Hurricane

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 four highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Hurricane were Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Local Environmental Quality. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Physical Health, Mental Health, and Living Standards.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Hurricane Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 69% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 31% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Hurricane. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security 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 - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 47% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 53% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 47% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 53% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 62% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 38% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Hurricane

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Hurricane. Safety and Security, Living Standards, Local Environmental Quality and Mental Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. None of the domains fell in the “red zone” of high importance, but lower ratings. Physical Health approaches this red quadrant, as it had a higher-than-average importance score, but was rated close to the average of domains.

 

Scatterplot. Title: Hurricane 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, Local Environmental Quality, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Leisure Time. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Education, Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: None.

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 Leisure Time for 11% of respondents.



Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Hurricane. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 75% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 24% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 62% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 37% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 48% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 51% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 39% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 50% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 11% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 30% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 67% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 60% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 38% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 68% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 76% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Connection with nature was more likely to decline for those age 60+ than those age 18-39.

  • Leisure time was more likely to decline for without a college degree.

  • Local environmental quality was less likely to decline for those age 60+ or those with higher incomes.

  • Physical health was less likely to decline for those indicating they were Latter-day Saint or those with lower incomes.

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

  • Social Connections were more likely to decline for those living in Hurricane longer than 5 years.


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


Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Hurricane, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2019- 4.05, 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.8; Category: Safety and security- 2019- 3.9, 2020- 4.0, 2021- 3.95; Category: Connection with Nature- 2019- 4.1, 2020- 3.95, 2021- 3.75, Category: Education- 2019- 3.75, 2020- 3.55, 2021- 3.35; Category: Physical Health: 2019- 4.3, 2020- 3.7, 2021 3.6; Category: Mental Health- 2019- 3.85, 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.7; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2019- 4.2, 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.8; Category: Leisure Time- 2019- 3.75, 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.65, Category: Social Connection- 2019- 4.1, 2020- 3.45; 2021- 3.3, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2019- 3.45, 2020- 3.0, 2021- 2.85.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among Hurricane respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (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 strongest relationships (p< .05).

 

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Hurricane

  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 40-50   +   +
 
Wellbeing in Hurricane       + vs Other  +
Over $100,000 >
Under $50,000		  
Connection to Nature + vs 18-39         +
Cultural Opportunities     +   –  
Education   + +      
Leisure Time         +
  
Living Standards + vs 40-59       +
  
Local Environmental Quality + vs 40-59     + vs A/A/NRP     
Mental Health +
     + vs A/A/NRP    +  
Physical Health + vs 40-59       + vs A/A/NRP  +
Over $100,000 >
Under $50,000		  
Safety & Security + vs 40-59   + + vs A/A/NRP    +  
Social Connections       + vs A/A/NRP  +
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       – vs A/A/NRP    
Cultural Opportunities            
Education –
 + +     –
Leisure Time – vs 18-39     –
 +  
Living Standards – vs 18-39       +
Over $100,000 >
Under $50,000		  
Local Environmental Quality  +     – vs A/A/NRP    
Mental Health – vs 18-39  + + – vs Other
    
Physical Health + vs 40-59        +  
Safety and Security    +   – vs Other    
Social Connections + vs 40-59        +   
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Hurricane

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Hurricane. 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 Hurricane, the average score was 3.17. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.10.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Hurricane. Subtitle: In Hurricane, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 38% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 9% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 17% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Hurricane. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Hurricane as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 26% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 11% of respondents

Respondents identifying as Latter-day Saints had higher levels of perceived local action and higher levels of community connection than all other age groups. Those age 60+ had higher perceptions of local action than those age 40-59. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Colors indicate 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 Hurricane take action? + vs 40-59     +

    
Do you feel connected to your community?       +    

 


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Hurricane. Of the 9 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 89% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 34 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 112 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 74 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 50% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% 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. Hurricane is in the mid-range 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 Hurricane was 1.98. Church group activities (48%) were the most common activities for respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Hurricane. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 48% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 34% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 31% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 34% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 16% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 29% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 6% 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 Hurricane 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, 1% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 27% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 28% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 39% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 19% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 20% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 62% indicated neither, 18% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 38% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 54% indicated neither, 8% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

 

The majority of Hurricane survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (80%), followed by 22% indicating it was just right. Respondents were more divided on the pace of economic development with 47% indicating it is too fast (59%), followed by 23% indicating just right and 22% indicating too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Hurricane. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Hurricane? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 14% of respondents rated just right; 80% of respondents rated too fast; 4% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Hurricane. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Hurricane? Data – 22% of respondents rated too slow; 23% of respondents rated just right; 47% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Hurricane 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 Hurricane

 

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Hurricane City. Air Quality, Roads and Transportation, and Water Supply were top concerns with 77-87% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Hurricane. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Hurricane, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% 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- 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Roads and Transportation- 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment 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 Quality Food- 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 Healthcare- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse - 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 27 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Other Concerns Mentioned

No shopping other than Walmart (need Ross and Shoe Show, Smith’s (3)

Too much growth and people moving in (3)

Water (3)

Californians, visitors from out of state (2)

People trying to change our town, valley taken over (2)

Zoning, zoning changes despite public opinion (2)

Animal control laws (1)

Availability of Covid vaccine (1)

Control of off-road vehicles (dust and pollution) (1)

Elected officials (1)

Gas prices (1)

Golf superintendent (1)

Need gluten free places to eat (1)

Need hiking trails like Coral Canyon (1)

No music venues (1)

Overbearing law enforcement (1)

Proper building codes (1)

Roads (600N) (1)

Side by side explosion (1)

Social hall for dancing and other activities (1)

Vacation rentals destroying neighborhoods (1)

  

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Hurricane 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 Hurricane ”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Hurricane. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 142 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small-Town Feel, Connected, Friendly, Other; Category: Natural Resources- 89 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include nature, Farmland/Open Space, Climate, Are Quality, Dark Skies. Category: City Character- 43 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Quiet and Peaceful, Good Location, Good Quality of Life, Well-kept City, Other. Category; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 81 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Feels safe, Abundant Recreation, Good Economy, Not Much Traffic, Good Healthcare, Low Crime Rate, Good Housing, 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.