By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Price Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Summary

Price 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 Price 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 February 2021, Price City advertised the survey via social media, media releases to local newspaper and radio stations, and email channels. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 230 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 83% complete responses. 
  • In 2019, there were 92 responses. The 2019 Price Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Price was estimated at 5,823 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 230 surveys in 2021 represent 3.9% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.33%. 

Key Findings in Price

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Price were below average among 29 study cities. Latter-day Saints were found to have higher levels of wellbeing and female respondents rated a number of wellbeing categories as more important than males.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Connection with Nature
  • Safety and Security
  • Local Environmental Quality

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Leisure Time

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 45% of respondents and was more likely to decline for respondents living in Price for more than 5 years. Community wellbeing in Price declined in the last year for 55% of respondents. Mental health, physical health, and social connections were more likely to decline for female respondents.

Religion was found to be a particularly important factor in the rating of wellbeing overall and for domains, with those indicating their religion as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rating wellbeing and most wellbeing domains as higher than those from other religions.

The majority of respondents felt the Pace of Economic Development in Price was too slow.

Top concerns for the future of Price were:

  • Opportunities for Youth (85% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Shopping Opportunities (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (72% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (69% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Social and Emotional Support (67% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Price? 
Small-town feel, access to nature, and feeling safe.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Price 95.7%
Part Time Residents of Price 4.3%
Length of Residency - Range 0-70 years
Length of Residency - Average 24 years
Length of Residency - Median 21 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 18.7%

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 Price. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, own their home, have children in household, and are employed were particularly overrepresented. People age 70+ 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 Price

Demographic Characteristics Price Online Wellbeing Survey American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2019 (N=92) 2021 (N=230)
Age 18-29 34.8% 20.0% 22.4%
Age 30-39 14.1% 25.3% 16.5%
Age 40-49 20.7% 22.6% 17.1%
Age 50-59 14.1% 13.7% 15.6%
Age 60-69 10.9% 14.2% 11.9%
Age 70 or over 5.4% 4.2% 16.5%
Adult female 57.1% 69.5% 54.0%
Adult male 42.9% 30.5% 46.0%
No college degree 73.9% 58.2% 83.9%
College degree (4-year) 26.1% 41.8% 16.1%
Median household income NA NA $42,500
Income under $25,000 27.5% 13.3% 32.2%
Income $25,000-$49,999 23.1% 19.0% 24.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 24.2% 18.0% 19.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 16.5% 23.8% 9.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 4.4% 18.5% 8.9%
Income $150,000 or over 4.4% 7.4% 5.1%
Latter-day Saint 40.2% 38.5% NA
Other religion 59.8% 35.8% NA
No religious preference 29.2% 25.7% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 7.4% 16.6%
White 89.1% 96.2% 89.4%
Nonwhite 10.9% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 3.8% 10.6%
Married NA 72.5% 48.1%
Children under 18 in household NA 50.0% 34.2%
Employed (combined) NA 73.2% 52.9%
Out of work and looking for work NA 1.1% 4.2%
Other NA 25.7% 42.7%
Own home/owner occupied NA 73.2% 64.1%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 26.8% 35.9%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Price

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Price. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Price was 3.79, with 68% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Price was 3.17 with 41% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Price Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 8% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents.
Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Price Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Price? Data - 1 Very Poor: 5% of respondents; 2: 22% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 8% 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 45% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 55% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Price declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Price. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 10%; Declined slightly: 35%; No change: 37%; Improved slightly: 14%; Improved Substantially: 4%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Price. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Price changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 14%; Declined slightly:41%; No change: 34%; Improved slightly: 8%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Price as a Rural Hub/Resort City (we have combined these with Traditional Rural Communities). Within this cluster of cities, Price was in the low range of the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score, but Price was statistically significantly lower than Wellington, La Verkin, Helper, and Richfield in terms of average community wellbeing.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.22; Sandy: Average Score 4.13; Bountiful: Average Score 4.06; South Ogden: Average Score 4.05; Layton: Average Score 3.98; Logan: Average Score 3.81; Tooele: Average Score 3.79. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.18; Vineyard: Average Score 4.17; Nibley: Average Score 4.16; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Hurricane: Average Score 4.08; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.06; Nephi: Average Score 4.05; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.03; Santaquin: Average Score 4.00; Lehi: Average Score 3.98; Ephraim: Average Score 3.86; Herriman: Average Score 3.86. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.07; Wellington: Average Score 4.02; La Verkin: Average Score 3.98; Blanding: Average Score 3.88; Moab: Average Score 3.82; East Carbon: Average Score 3.82; Price: Average Score 3.79, Delta: Average Score: 3.78; Vernal: Average Score 3.66.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Bountiful: Average Score 3.96; Draper: Average Score 3.89; Sandy: Average Score 3.80; Layton: Average Score 3.72; South Ogden: Average Score 3.68; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Tooele: Average Score 3.28. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.06; Vineyard: Average Score 3.95; North Logan: Average Score 3.91; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.87; Nibley: Average Score 3.80; Hurricane: Average Score 3.75; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.66; Lehi: Average Score 3.60; Santaquin: Average Score 3.59; Nephi: Average Score 3.58; Ephraim: Average Score 3.57; Herriman: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 3.88; Helper: Average Score 3.73; La Verkin: Average Score 3.62; Wellington: Average Score 3.61; Delta: Average Score 3.51; Blanding: Average Score 3.48; Vernal: Average Score 3.27; Price: Average Score 3.17, Moab: Average Score: 3.13; East Carbon: Average Score 2.98.

Wellbeing Domains in Price

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 Price were Connection to Nature, Safety and Security, and Local Environmental Quality. The three most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Mental Health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Price Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards – 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 65% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 35% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 78% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 22% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Price. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% 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: Mental Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 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 - 26% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 74% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 34% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 66% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 26% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 74% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 47% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 53% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Price

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Price. Local Environmental Quality and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Mental Health, Physical Health, and Leisure Time fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that they were of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Living Standards 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 and Social Connections had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

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

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 18% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Price. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 68% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 29% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 67% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 33% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 57% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 39% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 54% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 37% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 43% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 52% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 29% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 53% 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, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 70% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 23% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 70% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 7% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Overall personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for respondents living in Price more than 5 years.

  • Connection with nature was more likely to decline for those with higher incomes.

  • Cultural opportunities were more likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Leisure time was more likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Mental health was less likely to decline for those age 60+ and more likely to decline for female respondents.

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

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


The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2019 and 2021 by Price residents, showing declines in all domains except safety and security and local environmental quality. 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.


Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Price, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.55, 2021- 3.4; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.6; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.75, Category: Education- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.4; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.75, 2021 3.2; Category: Mental Health-2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.3; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.7; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.55, 2021- 3.2, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.7; 2021- 2.95, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 3.05, 2021- 2.6.

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

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Price

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

 +  
Wellbeing in Price      +

 +

   +
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities       +

   +
Education     + +
   +
Leisure Time +
vs 18-39		   +

 + vs Other     
Living Standards +     +

 +
Over $100,000 >
under $50,000		  
Local Environmental Quality     + +

 +
Over $100,000 >
under $50,000		  
Mental Health +
vs 18-39		 –   + vs Other  +
Over $100,000 >
under $50,000		  
Physical Health   –

 + – vs Other +
Over $100,000 >
under $50,000		  
Safety & Security   – +

 +

    
Social Connections +
vs 40-59		   +

 + vs Other  +
Over $100,000 >
under $50,000		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature   +      –
Over $100,000 < $50,000-$74,999		 +
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 40-59		 +        +
Education –
vs 18-39		 +  +     –
Leisure Time         –
Over $100,000 < $50,000-$74,999		  
Living Standards – 
vs 18-39		 +        
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health – 
vs 18-39		  +        
Physical Health    +   – vs A/A/NRP –
Over $100,000 < $50,000-$74,999		  
Safety and Security            
Social Connections   +

         
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Price

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in price. 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 Price, the average score was 2.94. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.90.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Price. Subtitle: In Price, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 12% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 19% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Price. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Price as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 17% of respondents; 2: 22% of respondents; 3: 28% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents

Increased levels of community connection were reported by those who identified as Latter-day Saints. Latter-day Saints and female respondents also reported higher levels of perceived local 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 Price take action?   +   + vs A/A/NRP
    
Do you feel connected to your community?       +
    

A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference
 
A significant, positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Price. Of the 17 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 47 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 93 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 63% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 38 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 37% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 63% 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. Price is in the top 10 on perceived community action and in the mid- range 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 Price was 2.38. Church group activities (44%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by civic or charity group activities (41%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Price. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 44% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 38% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 32% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 41% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 37% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 32% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 14% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided as shown in the graph below.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Price 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, 1% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 6% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 65% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 11% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 54% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 11% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 53% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 13% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 49% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 17% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 42% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Regarding the rate of population growth in Price, 46% of survey respondents it was just right, and 32% indicated it was too slow. The majority of respondents from Price indicated that the pace of economic development was too slow (75%).

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Price. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Price? Data – 32% of respondents rated too slow; 46% of respondents rated just right; 9% of respondents rated too fast, 13% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Price. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Price? Data – 75% of respondents rated too slow; 17% of respondents rated just right; 1% of respondents rated too fast; 7% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Price 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 Price

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Price. Opportunities for Youth, Substance Abuse, and Employment Opportunities were the top three concerns with three-quarters or more of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Price. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Price, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 70% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 30% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 40 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Needing More Things to Do, Drugs and Substance Abuse Resources, and Roads were the most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned
Need more things to do (5) 
(that aren’t hunting or sports), activities for youth outside of sports, programs for youth, entertainment, There’s nothing here!)

Lack of drug enforcement, educated substance abuse resources, addiction resources, drugs (4)

Roads, road condition in neighborhoods (4)

Infrastructure (2)

Taxes (2)

Canyon rock falls (1)

Collapse of the US dollar, economic stability (1)

Community engagement (1)

Craft and fabric supplies (1)

Decorations on graves (1)

Downtown appearance (1)

Economy growth, no economic opportunity (1)

Football team sucks (1)

Fruit tree planting, veggies, gardening (1)

Restaurants (1)

Future sustainability (1)

Government (1)

Inadequate public officers (1)

Inflation/poverty (1)

Lack of public cleanliness (1)

Minority, religion, race, etc. (1)

No major store to shop at (1)

Schools (1)

Slumlords and irresponsible property owners (1)

Waste of money (1)

Public transportation (1)

Summary of Open Comments

The survey included opportunities in the survey were provided for respondents to share their ideas about Price 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 Price”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Price. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 110 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Friendly, Small Town Feel, connected, Friendly, Family-Friendly, Other; Category: Natural Resources- 55 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Good Air Quality, Extraction Industry, Other. City Character- 34 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Quiet/Peaceful, Good Location, Good Quality of Life, Historical, Well-Kept City; Category: Economy- 26 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest Include Low Cost of Living, Good Jobs, Amenities. Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 59 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Feels Safe, Abundant Recreation, Good Schools, Not Much Traffic, Well-Governed, High Speed Internet Access, Good Parks and Trails, 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.