By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Logan Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Logan 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 Logan survey with initial information on changes since 2019 and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, Logan City advertised the survey via social media, email lists, and local news coverage. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 563 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 85% complete responses. 
  • In 2019, there were 131 responses. The 2019 Logan Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Logan was estimated at 38,725 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 563 surveys in 2021 represent 1.5% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.10%.

Key Findings in Logan

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Logan were below average among 29 study cities. Wellbeing varied greatly by demographic characteristics with age, gender, religion and income playing key roles.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Education
  • Connection to Nature
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:


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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Rating)

  • Mental Health
  • Local Environmental Quality
  • (Physical 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 53% of respondents and was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints than those with no religious preference. Wellbeing in Logan declined in the last year for 61% of respondents. Mental health was less likely to decline for those age 60+.

Extractive Industry was seen to have particularly negative influences on wellbeing, while Natural Landscapes were overwhelmingly positive.  

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

Top concerns for the future of Logan:

  • Air Quality (85% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (68% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (65% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (63% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (62% Moderate or Major Concern)

82% of respondents indicated that preserving open space and farmland along the Highway 89/91 corridor was at least moderately important.

63% of respondents indicated that building a new recreation center with an indoor pool was at least moderately important.

What do people value most about Logan? Access to nature, small town, friendly feel, good economy, abundant recreation and feelings of safety.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Logan 96.6%
Part Time Residents of Logan 3.4%
Length of Residency - Range 0-79 years
Length of Residency - Average 18 years
Length of Residency - Median 13 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 27.0%

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 Logan. 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 and those with incomes under $25,000 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Logan

Demographic Characteristics Logan Online Wellbeing Survey American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2019 (N=131) 2021 (N=563)
Age 18-29 56.3% 24.8% 56.5%
Age 30-39 13.3% 22.5% 14.1%
Age 40-49 9.4% 19.6% 9.9%
Age 50-59 6.3% 12.3% 6.7%
Age 60-69 8.6% 12.1% 5.9%
Age 70 or over 6.3% 8.6% 6.9%
Adult female 57.0% 70.4% 49.9%
Adult male 43.0% 29.6% 50.1%
No college degree 64.9% 37.4% 63.0%
College degree (4-year) 35.2% 62.6% 37.0%
Median household income NA NA $43,056
Income under $25,000 30.2% 13.8% 24.0%
Income $25,000-$49,999 37.3% 23.6% 33.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 15.9% 22.3% 18.6%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 7.1% 13.6% 12.1%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 5.6% 16.6% 8.3%
Income $150,000 or over 4.0% 10.2% 4.0%
Latter-day Saint 60.8% 49.3% NA
Other religion 10.0% 19.4% NA
No religious preference 29.2% 31.4% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 11.0% 14.7%
White 87.5% 95.2% 86.0%
Nonwhite 12.5% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 4.8% 14.0%
Married NA 75.2% 47.9%
Children under 18 in household NA 43.7% 32.2%
Employed (combined) NA 63.9% 68.9%
Out of work and looking for work NA 1.5% 2.4%
Other NA 34.6% 28.6%
Own home/owner occupied NA 65.8% 38.6%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 34.2% 61.4%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Logan

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Logan. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Logan was 3.81, with 68% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Logan was 3.46 with 51% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 25% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents
Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Logan? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 12% of respondents

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 53% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 61% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Logan declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Logan. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 11%; Declined slightly: 42%; No change: 23%; Improved slightly: 19%; Improved Substantially: 6%.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Logan? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 12% of respondents

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Logan as an Established/Mid-Sized City (and we combine this with the Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class). Within this cluster of cities, Logan was in the low range of the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Logan was statistically significantly different from all other cities in this cluster except for Tooele in terms of overall personal wellbeing. Logan was significantly different from all other cities in the cluster 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; Ephriam: 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; Ephriam: 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 Logan

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 Logan was Safety and Security, followed by Education, Connection to Nature, and Living Standards. The three most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature- 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 58% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 42% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 74% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 26% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Logan. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Mental Health - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security - 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 - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 26% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 74% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 43% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 57% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Logan

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Logan. Safety and Security and Living Standards were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Mental Health and Local Environmental Quality fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that they were of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Physical Health approaches this quadrant as its importance score was above average, but its rating is 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: Logan Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time, Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality, and Mental 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 and Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Connection to Nature for 20% of respondents and Leisure Time for 18% of respondents.
Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Logan. 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, 18% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 75% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 24% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 63% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 34% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 48% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 42% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 47% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 35% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 43% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 46% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 20% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 68% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 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: Local Environmental Quality- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 69% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Overall personal wellbeing was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints than those indicating Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference.

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

  • Living Standards were less likely to decline for those age 60+, those with a college degree, and Latter-day Saints.

  • Local environmental quality was more likely to decline for those without a college degree.

  • Mental health was less likely to decline for those age 60+.

  • Social Connections were less likely to decline for those with incomes over $150,000 than those with incomes $100,000 to $150,000.


The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2019 and 2021 by Logan residents, showing declines in all domains except safety and security. It should be noted that the 2019 survey was conducted with a very different method (iPad surveys in public locations) and the number of respondents was very different so caution should be taken on interpretation.
Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Logan. Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data – Category: Safety and Security- 3.7 in 2019, 4.0 in 2021; Category: Education- 4.1 in 2019, 3.7 in 2021; Category: Connection with Nature 4.0 in 2019, 3.75 in 2021; Category: Living Standards- 4.05 in 2019, 3.65 in 2021; Category: Physical Health- 4.2 in 2019, 3.45 in 2021; Category: Leisure Time- 3.7 in 2019, 3.4 in 2021; Category: Mental Health- 3.75 in 2019, 3.35 in 2021; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 3.7 in 2019, 3.2 in 2021; Category: Social Connections- 3.75 in 2019, 3.1 in 2021; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 3.2 in 2019, 2.7 in 2021.

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 Logan respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Colors indicate strongest significance (p< .05).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Logan

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

 +      +
Over $150,000 >
$50,000-$74,999		 +
Leisure Time   +   – vs A/A/NRP    
Living Standards   + –    +
Over $150,000 > Under $50,000		  
Local Environmental Quality   +
   – 
 +
  
Mental Health – 
vs 40-59		  +   + vs A/A/NRP    
Physical Health  +
  +     +  
Safety and Security – 
vs 18-39		  + –  + vs A/A/NRP    
Social Connections    +     +
Over $150,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action & Connections in Logan

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Logan. 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 Logan, the average score was 2.96. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.87.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Logan. Subtitle: In Logan, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Logan. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Logan as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 16% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents; 3: 28% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 10% of respondents

Latter-day Saints and those age 60+ reported higher perceptions that people in Logan take action than those of any other religion category or those age 18-39. Latter-day Saints and those age 60+ also reported feeling more connected to Logan as a community, whereas residents who have lived in Logan 5 years or less felt less connected and indicated lower perceptions that people in Logan take action. 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 Logan take action? +
vs 18-39		 +    +   –
Do you feel connected to your community? +
     + +
Over $100,000>Under $50,000		 –


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Logan. Of the 33 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 97% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 3% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 127 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 240 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 66% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 103 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 40% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% 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. Logan is in the lower half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

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

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Logan was 2.60. Church group activities (52%) was the most common activities for respondents, followed by civic or charity group activities (47%) and contacting a public official (43%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Logan. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 52% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 47% of respondents indicated yes to civic or charity group activities. 43% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 42% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 34% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 29% of respondents indicated yes to school group activities. 13% 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 Blanding Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 70% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 60% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 30% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 30% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 24% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 31% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Logan survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (61%), but they were more evenly distributed on the pace of economic development, with 30% indicating too fast, 34% indicating just right, and 24% indicating too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Logan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Logan? Data – 3% of respondents rated too slow; 26% of respondents rated just right; 61% of respondents rated too fast; 10% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Logan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Logan? Data – 24% of respondents rated too slow; 34% of respondents rated just right; 30% of respondents rated too fast; 12% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Draper 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 Logan

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Logan. Air Quality, Affordable Housing, and Employment Opportunities were the top three concerns with two-thirds to three-quarters or more of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Logan. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Logan, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Emotional and Social Support- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food - 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 114 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Affordable Housing and Social Justice and Diversity were the most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned
Number of Mentions
Other Concerns Mentioned
Number of Mentions

Affordable Housing

9

Social justice, diversity (including in government)

7

High density housing

6

Population growth and planning

6

Traffic

6

Schools

6

Walkability and bike-friendliness

5

Better paying jobs

5

Zoning, city regulations on housing

4

Cost of living, assistance

4

Lack of bars, nightlife

4

Climate and sustainable water use, drought

4

Revitalizing downtown/main street

3

Indoor pool/rec center/park west of 10th West

3

Better restaurants

3

Entertainment, arts and culture

3

Air quality, wood-burning fireplaces

3

New library

2

Health care choices, cancer care

2

COVID impacts, COVID restrictions

2

Wheelchair accessibility and help for people with disabilities

2

Open space/land

2

Homelessness

2

City expenditures, decisions

2

Police/police chief

2

Racism and white supremacy

2

Net neutrality, internet competition

2

Local businesses

2

Recycling and trash pickup

2

No pet friendly apartments

1

Animal control (dogs)

1

Public transportation

1

Parking

1

Kid safety

1

Sexual assault/criminal system

1

Light/sound pollution

1

Target

1

Town/gown relationship

1

Cache Valley Mall

1

Food security

1

Renewable power supply

1

 

 

Logan Specific Questions

Logan City added two questions specific to the wellbeing survey – one regarding the highway corridor into Cache Valley and the other about building a new recreation center with an indoor pool. The majority of Logan residents felt both of these were at least moderately important.Type: Likert Graph. Title: Considering the future of Cache Valley, how important are the following issue to you? Data – 18% of respondents rated preserving open space and farmland along the Highway 89/91 corridor as you drive into the valley from sardine canyon as not at all important or slightly important while 82% of respondents rated it as moderately important, important, or very important. 37% of respondents rated building a new recreation center with an indoor pool as not at all important or slightly important while 63% or respondents rated it as moderately important, important, or very important.

Summary of Open Comments

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

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Logan. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data – Category: Natural Resources- 201 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include nature, farmland and open space, other; Category: Social Climate- 188 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include small town feel, friendly, connected, diverse, family-friendly, other; Category: Activities- 90 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include abundant recreation, abundant cultural opportunities; Category: Safety- 77 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Feels safe, good police; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 190 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include good economy, good quality of life, access to education, good location, well-maintained city, good public transportation, 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.