By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

La Verkin Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Summary

La Verkin 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 La Verkin survey as well as some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, La Verkin City advertised the survey via electronic newsletter, social media, city council meetings, and flyers at city office. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 150 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 83% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 105 responses and the 2019 iPad survey had 27 responses. All La Verkin Wellbeing Survey reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of La Verkin was estimated at 2,874 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 150 survey responses in 2021 represent 5.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 7.79%. 

Key Findings La Verkin

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in La Verkin were average among 29 study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Connection to Nature
  • Living Standards
  • Mental Health

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 35% of respondents.

Top concerns for the future of La Verkin were:

  • Water Supply (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (70% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (70% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (67% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (67% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about La Verkin? Small town feel, access to nature, quiet and peacefulness, and abundant recreation opportunities.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of La Verkin 97.3%
Part Time Residents of La Verkin 2.7%
Length of Residency - Range 0.25-69 years
Length of Residency - Average 16 years
Length of Residency - Median 10 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 32.4%

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 La Verkin. People who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, own their home, and have children in household were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 are 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 La Verkin

Demographic Characteristics iPad Survey Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2019 (N=27) 2020 (N=95) 2021 (N=150)
Age 18-29 14.8% 4.8% 8.8% 20.7%
Age 30-39 25.9% 21.4% 20.6% 21.8%
Age 40-49 11.1% 22.6% 16.8% 9.8%
Age 50-59 14.8% 29.8% 17.6% 16.2%
Age 60-69 18.5% 16.7% 18.4% 14.8%
Age 70 or over 14.8% 4.8% 17.6% 16.7%
Adult female 66.7% 68.7% 61.8% 51.4%
Adult male 33.3% 31.3% 38.2% 48.6% 
No college degree 76.0% 67.9% 66.1% 88.0%
College degree (4-year) 24.0% 32.1% 33.9% 22.0%
Median household income NA NA NA $49,945
Income under $25,000 24.0% 7.1% 7.5% 21.5%
Income $25,000-$49,999 8.0% 22.6% 28.1% 28.5%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 36.0% 29.8% 28.1% 33.6%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 12.0% 29.8% 17.4% 7.6%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 8.0% 8.3% 15.7% 6.6%
Income $150,000 or over 4.0% 2.4% 3.3% 2.2%
Latter-day Saint 54.5% 51.8% 56.5% NA
Other religion 27.3% 28.9% 22.6% NA
No religious preference 18.2% 19.3% 21.0% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA NA 2.4% 13.2%
White 88.0% 92.8% 97.9% 85.8%
Nonwhite 12.0% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 7.2% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 2.1% 14.2%
Married NA 85.5% 88.0% 55.2%
Children under 18 in household NA 41.7% 40.3% 44.1%
Employed (combined) NA 61.4% 69.6% 58.9%
Out of work and looking for work NA 1.2% 0.0% 3.5% 
Other NA 38.4% 30.4% 37.7%
Own home/owner occupied NA NA 92.0% 75.4%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA NA 8.0% 24.6%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in La Verkin

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in La Verkin. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in La Verkin was 3.98, with 73% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in La Verkin was 3.62 with 56% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in La Verkin. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 45% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in La Verkin Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in La Verkin? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 36% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from La Verkin, the average personal wellbeing score declined from 4.18 to 3.98 and the community wellbeing score declined from 3.69 to 3.62. 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 La Verkin. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.18, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.69, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.98, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.62

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

La Verkin’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      7.74

Community Wellbeing in La Verkin          7.13

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

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      3.74

Community Wellbeing in La Verkin            3.67

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 35% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 37% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in La Verkin declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in La Verkin. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; Declined slightly: 28%; No change: 39%; Improved slightly: 21%; Improved Substantially: 5%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in La Verkin. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in La Verkin changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 8%; Declined slightly: 29%; No change: 47%; Improved slightly: 14%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

La Verkin is in the Rural Hub/Resort/Traditional Rural Communities cluster of Utah cities. Within this cluster of cities, La Verkin falls at the average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. La Verkin is not statistically significantly different any other cities in the cluster terms of overall personal wellbeing, but is significantly higher than Price, Moab, and East Carbon 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 La Verkin

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 La Verkin were Safety and Security, Connection to Nature, Living Standards, and Mental Health. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Physical Health, Mental Health, and Living Standards.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 75% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 25% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in La Verkin. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% 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 - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% 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 - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% 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 - 38% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 62% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 29% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 50% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 50% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for La Verkin

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from La Verkin. Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Mental Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No domains fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone” (indicating higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average). Leisure Time, Local Environmental Quality and Physical Health approach this “red zone” as they are above average in importance, but come close to the average on rating. Please note that all domains except for cultural opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: La Verkin 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, Mental health, Safety and Security, Local Environmental Quality, Leisure Time, and Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Education, Social Connections. 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, Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Leisure Time for 14% of respondents.


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in La Verkin. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 69% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 28% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% 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, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 53% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 43% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 39% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 47% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 14% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 36% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 68% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 7% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 24% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 19% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 78% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Cultural Opportunities were less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints than those indicating Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference.

  • Education was more likely to decline for those with a college degree and those age 60+ (than those age 40-59).

  • Living standards were less likely to decline for those age 60+ and Latter-day Saints.

  • Local environmental quality was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints.

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



The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2019, 2020 and 2021 by La Verkin residents. Some domains have been stable while others have changed over time. Note that 2019 results are from a different survey method and with fewer people than in 2020 and 2021.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in La Verkin, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2019- 3.75, 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.8; Category: Safety and security- 2019- 3.5, 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.8; Category: Connection with Nature- 2019- 3.9, 2020- 4.0, 2021- 3.95, Category: Education- 2019- 3.6, 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.45; Category: Physical Health: 2019- 4.8, 2020- 3.75, 2021 3.55; Category: Mental Health- 2019- 3.5, 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.75; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2019- 3.8, 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.6; Category: Leisure Time- 2019- 3.55, 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.55, Category: Social Connection- 2019- 3.55, 2020- 3.55; 2021- 3.3, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2019- 3.35, 2020- 2.85, 2021- 2.8.

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 La Verkin respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < .05). The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category (p< .05).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in La Verkin

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing   +

 +
   +

  
Wellbeing in La Verkin  + vs 18-39   +      
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities + vs 18-39          
Education     +
      
Leisure Time + vs 18-39   +
   +
Over $100,000 > Under $50,000		  
Living Standards + vs 40-59       +
Over $100,000 > Under $50,000		  
Local Environmental Quality + vs 40-59       +
Over $100,000 > Under $50,000		  
Mental Health     +      
Physical Health + vs 18-39     +
   +
Over $100,000 > Under $50,000		  
Safety & Security       – vs A/A/NRP     
Social Connections   +   – vs A/A/NRP     
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature     +   +
Over $100,000 >  $50,000-$74,999		 +
Cultural Opportunities + vs 18-39     – vs A/A/NRP 
   +
Education – + + + vs A/A/NRP     
Leisure Time – vs 40-59          +
Living Standards   +
   –    
Local Environmental Quality         +
Over $100,000 >  $50,000-$74,999		 +
Mental Health      +      
Physical Health    +        
Safety and Security       – vs A/A/NRP 
    +
Social Connections       – vs A/A/NRP 
     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

 
Community Action & Connections in La Verkin
Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in La Verkin. 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 La Verkin, the average score was 3.04. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.70.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in La Verkin. Subtitle: In La Verkin, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 23% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 29% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in La Verkin. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to La Verkin as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 15% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 28% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% of respondents

Respondents age 60+ reported higher perceptions of local action than those age 40-59. Respondents who identified as Latter-day Saint indicated lower levels of community connection and lower perceptions of local action than those who identified as Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on 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 La Verkin take action? + vs 40-59     – 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Do you feel connected to your community?       –
vs A/A/NRP		   –

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


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in La Verkin. Of the 5 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 00% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 27 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 85% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 59 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 69% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 39 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 33% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% 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. La Verkin is in the mid-range on perceived community action and is the top city on 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 La Verkin was 2.70. Church group activities (57%) and contacting a public official about an issue (52%) were the most common activities for respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in La Verkin. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 57% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 40% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 52% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 44% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 31% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 35% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 14% 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 La Verkin 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, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 1% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 74% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 24% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 37% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 34% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 27% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 37% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 53% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Nearly half of La Verkin’s survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (49%), followed by 36% indicating just right and 9% indicating too slow. Respondents were more evenly split on the pace of economic development with 37% indicating just right (52%), and 27% indicating too slow and too fast.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in La Verkin. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in La Verkin? Data – 9% of respondents rated too slow; 36% of respondents rated just right; 46% of respondents rated too fast, 9% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in La Verkin. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in La Verkin? Data – 27% of respondents rated too slow; 37% of respondents rated just right; 27% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how La Verkin 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 La Verkin

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of La Verkin. Water Supply, Opportunities for Youth, Public Safety, and Access to Public Land were the top four concerns with 70-79% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in La Verkin. Subtitle: As you look to the future of La Verkin, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% 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- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 33 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Other Concerns Mentioned

Renting to unknown, out-of-staters while locals have hard time finding a place to live, too many Airbnb’s/nightly rentals (4)

Shanty areas, junk cars in yards, a clean city, care of personal/private which the general public must see (4)

Crime, safety, police availability (2)

Government waste, keeping government small (2)

Balance of housing and commercial development (1)

Beautification of State Street (1)
City council disconnected with community (1)

City government (1)

Dining (1)

Friendliness (1)

Getting hot springs working again (1)

Ground movement (1)

High property taxes (1)

Infrastructure (1)

Irrigation water (1)

More growth (1)

Need more holiday decorations as community and not just at festivals (1)

Police harassment (1)

Politics (1)

Recreational sports need to be brought back (pandemic has proven importance of living healthier lives) (1)

Stop lights (1)

Sulfur/sewer smell (1)

Summary of Open Comments

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

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in La Verkin. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 104 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small-Town Feel, Connected, Friendly, Family Friendly, Good Values; Category: Natural Resources- 35 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Farmland/Open Space, Nice Climate. Category: City Character- 21 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Quiet and Peaceful, High Quality of life, Private, Well-Maintained. Category; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 44 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Abundant Recreation, Good Location, Feels safe, Good Economy, Good Pace of Growth, Low Traffic, Good City Services, 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.