By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Hyde Park Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Hyde Park City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2021. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 Hyde Park survey as well as some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

From January through early March 2021, Hyde Park City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter, utility bills, social media and email lists. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 328 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 this effort with 91% complete responses.
  • The adult population of Hyde Park was estimated at 2,901 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The survey responses represent 11.3% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.10%.

Key Findings in Hyde Park

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Hyde Park were above average among 29 study cities. Demographic characteristics were related to many wellbeing variables. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Rating)

  • Physical Health

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 35% of respondents. Personal wellbeing was most likely to decline for female respondents.

Extractive Industry was seen as having a negative influence on wellbeing, but Natural Landscape Features were overwhelmingly positive.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast but that the Pace of Economic Development was just right.

Top concerns for the future of Hyde Park were:

  • Air Quality (70% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (68% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (62% Moderate or Major Concern)

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

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Hyde Park 99.1%
Part Time Residents of Hyde Park 0.9%
Length of Residency - Range 0-83 years
Length of Residency - Average 14 years
Length of Residency - Median 6 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 47.2%

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, survey respondents were not fully representative of Hyde Park. People who are age 70+, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and have children in their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those employed 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 Hyde Park

Demographic Characteristics Hyde Park Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=328)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-29  4.0% 24.5%
Age 30-39 17.1% 18.1%
Age 40-49 17.4% 19.2%
Age 50-59 19.5% 17.2%
Age 60-69 22.8% 9.7%
Age 70 or over 19.1% 11.3%
Adult female 65.1% 53.1%
Adult male 34.9% 46.9%
No college degree 38.6% 52.3%
College degree (4-year) 61.4% 47.7%
Median household income NA $76,591
Income under $25,000 2.5% 16.9%
Income $25,000-$49,999 8.9% 13.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 22.3% 18.0%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 22.0% 17.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 27.7% 17.7%
Income $150,000 or over 16.6% 17.0%
Latter-day Saint 80.0% NA
Other religion 9.5% NA
No religious preference 10.5% NA
Hispanic/Latino 2.7% 7.1%
White 97.6% 95.7%
Nonwhite 2.4% 4.3%
Married 88.8% 63.8%
Children under 18 in household 42.1% 47.0%
Employed (combined) 51.5% 61.5%
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 2.4%
Other 48.5% 36.1%
Own home/owner occupied 95.3% 86.5%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 4.7% 13.5%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Hyde Park

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Hyde Park. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Hyde Park was 4.18, with 84% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Hyde Park was 4.06 with 80% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 36% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Hyde Park? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 35% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 31% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Hyde Park declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Hyde Park. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 4%; Declined slightly: 31%; No change: 39%; Improved slightly: 21%; Improved Substantially: 6%.
Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Hyde Park. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Hyde Park changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 4%; Declined slightly: 27%; No change: 56%; Improved slightly: 9%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Hyde Park as a Rapid Growth City. Within this cluster of cities, Hyde Park had the highest score in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Hyde Park was statistically significantly different from all other cities in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing except Vineyard, North Logan, Spanish Fork and Nibley, and significantly higher than Ephraim, and Herriman 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 Hyde Park

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 Hyde Park were Safety and Security and Living Standards. The three most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, and Physical Health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Hyde Park Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 8% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 92% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 91% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 65% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 35% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% 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 - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 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 - 22% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 54% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 46% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Hyde Park

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

Scatterplot. Title: Hype Park 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: Living Standard, Safety and Security, Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education, Local Environmental Quality. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Leisure Time, Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

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

  • Social Connections
  • Cultural Opportunities
  • Mental Health

No change was reported by most Hyde Park respondents for these areas:

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

Improvements were reported in Leisure Time (22%) and Connection to Nature (17%).

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Hyde Park. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 79% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 76% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 23% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 47% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 48% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 41% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 38% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 22% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 30% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 22% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 56% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 17% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 30% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 63% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 7% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 17% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 78% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 14% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 80% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 14% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 83% 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 Hyde Park between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Community wellbeing was less likely to decline for those indicating religion as Latter-day Saint and those who have lived in Hyde Park 5 years or less.

  • Education was less likely to decline for those age 60+ and for Latter-day Saints (versus other religions).

  • Living standards were less likely to decline for those with a college degree or those indicating religion as Latter-day Saint (versus other religions).

  • Local environmental quality was less likely to decline for female respondents and those indicating religion as Latter-day Saint.

  • Mental health was more likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Physical health was more likely to decline for female respondents and less likely to decline for those indicating they were Latter-day Saint.

  • Social Connections were more likely to decline for those with a college degree.

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 Hyde Park 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. Colors indicate the strongest relationships (p< .05).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Hyde Park

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing + vs 40-59        + –
Wellbeing in Hyde Park   +   +
    
Connection to Nature + vs 18-39       +  
Cultural Opportunities + vs 18-39     + +
Over $150,000 >
$50,000-$74,999		  
Education     +   +  
Leisure Time + vs 40-59      + vs Other  +
Over $150,000 >
$50,000-$74,999		  
Living Standards + vs 40-59  + + + vs Other  +  
Local Environmental Quality     + +   +
Mental Health +     + vs Other     
Physical Health +         +
Over $100,000 >
under $50,000		  
Safety & Security     +  + vs Other  +
Over $150,000 >
under $50,000		  
Social Connections       + vs Other   –
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature         –
Over $150,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities   +   –  vs A/A/NRP     
Education – vs 18-39 + +   +   
Leisure Time – vs 40-59       +
 
Living Standards   +     +  
Local Environmental Quality   +   –

 –
Over $150,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
Mental Health    +     +
Over $150,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
Physical Health    +     +   
Safety and Security    +     +
Over $150,000 >
$100,000-$149,999		  
Social Connections    +         
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Hyde Park

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Hyde Park. 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 Hyde Park, the average score was 3.44. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.12.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Hyde Park. Subtitle: In Hyde Park, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 2% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 32% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Hyde Park as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 6% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 39% of respondents; 4: 26% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher perceptions of local action than those from other religions and higher than those who indicated agnostic/atheist/no religious preference or other religion. Respondents living in Hyde Park 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection. 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 Hyde Park take action? + vs 40-59      + vs Other     
Do you feel connected to your community? + vs 40-59 

     +   –

Other= Other Religions 


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Hyde Park. Of the 5 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 80% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 44 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 89% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 143 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 73% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 112 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 45% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 55% 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. Hyde Park is in the top 5 on both perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

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

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Hyde Park was 2.28. Church group activities were the most common activity for respondents (75%).Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Hyde Park. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 75% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 27% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 34% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 42% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 27% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 19% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 5% 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, Hyde Park respondents were more divided.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Hyde Park 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, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 54% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 27% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 31% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 30% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 58% indicated neither, 12% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 4% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Hyde Park survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (55%) and 33% said it was just right. On the pace of economic development, 55% indicated it was just right, 25% too fast, and 11% too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Hyde Park? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 33% of respondents rated just right; 55% of respondents rated too fast, 11% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Hyde Park? Data – 11% of respondents rated too slow; 51% of respondents rated just right; 25% of respondents rated too fast; 12% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Hyde Park 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 Hyde Park

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Hyde Park. Air Quality, Water Supply, and Roads and Transportation were the top three concerns with around two-thirds of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Hyde Park. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Hyde Park, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Roads and Transportation- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 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 Mental Health Care- 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 48 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Local government and planning, high density housing, and road/sidewalk conditions were the most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned
Local government/planning/city manager (7) Overdevelopment/high density housing (6)
Road conditions, repair, traffic signs covered
with branches, sidewalks (4)		 Taxes, national inflation (3)
Green/open space (3) Traffic (3)
Senior citizens, activities for seniors (2) Schools, education (2)
Larger lots Local small businesses
Secular availability Library
Police Social connections for newcomers
Animal/pet control Aesthetic concerns
Water pressure is too low Lack of mountain bike trails
Wildlife Keeping standard of living
Cultural, political, racial awareness Farming

Summary of Open Comments

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

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

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Hyde Park. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 224 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small-Town Feel, Connected, Friendly, Family Friendly, Other; Category: Natural Resources- 86 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include nature, Farmland/Open Space, Abundant Recreation, Good Air Quality, Good Water Quality. Category: City Character- 93 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Good Location, Quiet and Peaceful, Well-Kept City, Good Quality of Life. Category; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 106 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Feels safe/Low Crime Rate, Low-Density Housing, Well-Governed, Good Parks and Trails, Good Schools, Good Housing, Good Pace and Growth, other.

Contact Information
Dr. Courtney Flint
courtney.flint@usu.edu
435-797-8635

On This Page

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Madison Fjeldsted, Jordan Hammon, and Sarah Wilson.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.