By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Layton Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Summary

Layton 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 Layton 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 February and early March 2021, Layton City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter, social media, city council meetings, staff emails, and city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 403 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 effort with 85% complete responses.

  • The adult population of Layton was estimated at 52,250 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The survey responses represent 0.8% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.86%.

Key Findings in Layton

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Layton were average and above average among 29 study cities. Education and religion were influential variables for wellbeing ratings.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Safety and Security
  • Education

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Physical Health
  • (Mental Health approaches this zone)

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 48% of respondents. Community wellbeing was less likely to decline for those who have lived in Layton 5 years or less.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast, but attitudes were more divided about the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Layton were:

  • Air Quality (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (80% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (70% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (68% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (66% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Recreation Opportunities (65% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Layton? 
Sense of community connection, good location with lots of amenities and recreation opportunities, feeling of safety, and access to nature.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Layton 98.5%
Part Time Residents of Layton 1.5%
Length of Residency - Range 0.5-65 years
Length of Residency - Average 18 years
Length of Residency - Median 15 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 24.9%

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 Layton. People who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, have children in household, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those who are Hispanic/Latino or nonwhite were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. 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 Layton

Demographic Characteristics Layton Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=403)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-29 6.7% 25.3%
Age 30-39 25.1% 21.5%
Age 40-49 31.3% 19.1%
Age 50-59 17.3% 13.2%
Age 60-69 13.7% 12.5%
Age 70 or over 5.8% 8.4%
Adult female 68.6% 49.7%
Adult male 31.4% 50.3%
No college degree 44.9% 65.4%
College degree (4-year) 55.1% 34.6%
Median household income NA $81,067
Income under $25,000 2.7% 10.0%
Income $25,000-$49,999 11.8% 15.7%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 18.3% 19.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 20.7% 18.3%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 31.0% 19.8%
Income $150,000 or over 4.3% 16.7%
Latter-day Saint 61.6% NA
Other religion 19.8% NA
No religious preference 18.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.8% 13.4%
White 94.6% 85.7%
Nonwhite 5.4% 14.3%
Married 84.8% 57.6%
Children under 18 in household 59.5% 43.8%
Employed (combined) 63.7% 69.4%
Out of work and looking for work 1.5% 1.6%
Other 34.8% 28.2%
Own home/owner occupied 90.0% 72.0%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 10.0% 28.0%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Layton

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Layton. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Layton was 3.98, with 76% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Layton was 3.72 with 66% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Layton Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 27% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Layton Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Layton? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 18% 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 48% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 49% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Layton declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Layton. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 8%; Declined slightly: 40%; No change: 31%; Improved slightly: 18%; Improved Substantially: 3%.
Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Layton. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Layton changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; Declined slightly: 42%; No change: 40%; Improved slightly: 10%; Improved Substantially: 1%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Layton as City of the 1st and 2nd Class (and we have combined this class with Established Mid-Sized Cities). Within this cluster of cities, Layton falls at the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and just above the cluster average for the average community wellbeing score. Layton is statistically significantly different from the Tooele, Logan, and Draper in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, and significantly different from all cities in this cluster on overall community wellbeing except for South Ogden, Sandy, and Draper.


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 Layton

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 two highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Layton were Living Standards and Safety and Security. The two most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health and Safety and Security.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Layton Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% 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 - 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 72% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 28% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Layton. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% 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 - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% 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 – 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% 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 - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 27% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 49% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 51% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Layton

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Layton. 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 higher than average, but rating fell near the overall average 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: Layton 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 Standards, Safety and Security, Mental Health, High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education, Leisure Time, Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality, Social Connections 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 Layton respondents for these areas:

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

Improvements were reported in Leisure Time (19%) and Connection to Nature (18%).

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Layton. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 80% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 17% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 73% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 26% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 59% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 37% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 48% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 32% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 19% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 46% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 45% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 38% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 44% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 60% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% 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- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 68% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 75% 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 Layton between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Community wellbeing was less likely to decline for those who have lived in Layton 5 years or less.

  • Education was less likely to decline for those age 60+ than for those age 40-59.

  • Local environmental quality was less likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Social connections were more likely to decline for female respondents.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

Demographic variables (age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence) were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among Layton respondents as shown in the table below. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Color indicates the strongest relationships (p< .05).


Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Layton

  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 A/A/NRP  +
Over $150,000 >
under $50,000		  
Wellbeing in Layton     +       
Connection to Nature         +
Over $150,000 >
under $50,000		  
Cultural Opportunities   –         
Education     +   +
Over $150,000 > $50,000-$74,999		  
Leisure Time     +      
Living Standards     + + vs Other  +  
Local Environmental Quality       +
    
Mental Health       + vs A/A/NRP     
Physical Health         – vs Other  +
Over $150,000 >
Under $50,000		  
Safety & Security   – 
 +    +
Over $150,000 >
under $50,000		  
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            
Cultural Opportunities +     –  vs Other     
Education –
 + +     –
Leisure Time   –     +
Over $150,000 >
$50,000-$74,999		  
Living Standards – vs 18-39          
Local Environmental Quality + vs 18-39     –

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

Community Action & Connections in Layton

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Layton. 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 Layton, the average score was 2.89. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.86.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Layton. Subtitle: In Layton, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 27% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 22% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Layton. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Layton as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 13% of respondents; 2: 25% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 20% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Respondents with higher incomes and Latter-day Saints indicated higher perceptions of local actions in response to problems or opportunities. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection than those age 18-39. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Colors indicate 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 Layton take action?       + vs Other  +  
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 18-39		          
 Other= Other Religions 


A significant, positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < .05).

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Layton. Of the 21 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 95% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 5% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 68 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 84% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 16% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 168 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 70% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 96 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 58% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% 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. Layton is in the bottom 5 on both perceived community action and in the lower half 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 Layton was 2.54. Church group activities were the most common activity for respondents (59%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Layton. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 59% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 36% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 41% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 41% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 39% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 29% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 9% 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 Layton Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 1% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 64% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 20% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 39% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 25% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 38% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 41% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 53% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Layton survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (71%), but they were more evenly distributed on the pace of economic development, with 42% indicating too fast, 38% indicating just right, and 8% indicating too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Layton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Layton? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 20% of respondents rated just right; 71% of respondents rated too fast, 8% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Layton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Layton? Data – 8% of respondents rated too slow; 38% of respondents rated just right; 42% of respondents rated too fast; 11% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Layton 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 Layton

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Layton. Air Quality, Affordable Housing, and Roads and Transportation were the top three concerns with over three-quarters of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Layton. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Layton, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% 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- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% 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- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 84 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Water/Utility Prices, Overdevelopment/Building on Green Space and High-Density Housing were the most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned

Water prices, cost of utilities (8)

High density housing (5)

Traffic, road repair, streetlights (5)

Overdevelopment, building on green space (5)

Access to trails, cycling paths/lanes, pedestrian walkways (4)

Overpopulation (& changing social positioning) (4)

Lack of dog park (3)

Local government (3)

Taxes (3)

Affordable housing (2)

Arts funding, community arts (2)

Crime, drug and violence (2)

Lack of park in East Layton (2)

Open space (2)

Planes shaking house, jet noise (2)

Public safety and police support (2)

Too much new construction (2)

City leaders lack of scientific knowledge (1)

Commercial signage ugly, distracting (1)

Community and family events (1)

Cost of living (1)

Covid restrictions affecting small businesses (1)

Cultural sensitivity (1)

Davis School District (1)

Defined city downtown or city center (1)

East side of Layton gets no care (1)

Homelessness (1)

Keeping our money in Layton (hotels, entertainment, outdoor fun, indoor fun, quality shopping) (1)

Lack of shopping boutique (1)

Landslides (1)

LDS Influence (1)

LGBT+ support (1)

Litter (1)

Mental health and wellness (1)

Nightlife (1)

Obesity (1)

Open spaces (1)

Ostracizing effects of outside money on the established social construct (1)

Poison groundwater from the base (1)

Releasing power from city manager and city attorney to the mayor and other elected officials (1)

Retail shops (1)

Too many storage units (1)

Utopia Fiber (1)

Wages (1)

Winter exercise opportunities (1)

  

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Layton 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 for “Please tell us what you value most about living in Layton”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Layton. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 117 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Connected, Small-Town Feel, Friendly, Family Friendly, Diverse, Good Values; Category: Natural Resources- 64 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Farmland/Open Space, Good Air Quality. Category: City Character- 111 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Good Location, Good Quality of Life, Well Maintained, Quiet and Peaceful, Other. Category: Economy- 79 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Amenity-Rich, Low Cost of Living. Category: Activities- 76 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Abundant Recreation, Great Trails, Great Parks, Abundant Cultural Opportunities. Category; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 105 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Feels safe, Well-Governed, Good Schools, Good Housing, Likes Hill Air Force Base, Good Pace of 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.