By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

 

Richfield Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Richfield is one of 25 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Project. 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.

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. Richfield City advertised the survey via social media. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 7, 2020 to March 19, 2020.

A total of 94 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Richfield resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Contact Information: Courtney Flint, courtney.flint@usu.edu, 435-797-8635
Acknowledgements: Utah League of Cities and Towns, Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, and Caitlyn Rogers

Respondent Characteristics

Nearly all of the Richfield survey respondents (98%) were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 1 to 86 years with an average of 22 years. The majority of respondents (81%) lived in Richfield for more than 5 years.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. As the table shows, those with college degrees and those with children in the household are overrepresented in the survey. The survey underrepresents those with incomes under $50,000, nonwhites and Latinos, and those age 60 and over. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents may not be fully representative of Richfield residents.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Richfield

Demographic Characteristics Richfield
Online Survey 2020
(94 Respondents)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 37.5% 44.9%
Age 40-59 28.4% 29.4%
Age 60 or Over 34.1% 25.7%
Female 54.5% 49.3%
Male 45.5% 50.7%
No college degree 65.5% 77.1%
College degree (4-year) 34.5% 22.9% (age 25+)
Median household income NA $48,776
Income Under $50,000 27.9% 52.7%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 36.0% 15.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 14.0% 14.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.3% 13.6%
Income $150,000 or over 5.8% 4.2%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 70.1% NA
Other religion 12.6% NA
No religious preference 17.2% NA
White (non-Latino) 98.9% 92.7%
Nonwhite or Latino 1.1% 7.3%
Children under 18 in household 53.4% 45.3% (related only)
Employed (combined) 60.3% 54.3% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work 1.1% 4.3% (unemployed)
Other 38.6% 41.5% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Richfield

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Richfield. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score among Richfield respondents was 4.12, with 84% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for wellbeing in Richfield was 3.66.
Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Richfield. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 12% of respondents; 4: 51% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 33% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Richfield. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Richfield? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 11% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 38% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Richfield falls into the top-half of wellbeing scores for all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Richfield in the “Rural, Rural Hub & Resort Cities” group, along with four other cities in this study as indicated in the graph below. There is no statistically significant difference among these cities on personal wellbeing.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.

Wellbeing Domains in Richfield

According to national and international entities tracking wellbeing, a number of common domains make up wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, and indicated their importance to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. Based on percentage with a good or excellent rating, the top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents were safety and security, local environmental quality, and connection with nature. The most important wellbeing domains were safety and security, mental health, physical health, and living standards.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Richfield. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 19% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 81% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 60% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 68% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 32% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Richfield. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% 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: Living Standards - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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: Local Environmental Quality - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 29% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 36% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 64% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 53% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 47% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables for age, religion and income were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives in Richfield. These relationships are shown in Table 2 and are based on a multivariate generalized linear model using the categories from Table 1, excluding children in household and employment.

Table 2
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +
vs 40-59 		 –     +  Insuffcient data
Wellbeing in Richfield        +
vs no religious preference		     Insuffcient data
Connection to Nature            Insuffcient data
Cultural Opportunities  +
vs 18-39 		          Insuffcient data
Education      +  +
vs no religious preference		    Insuffcient data
Leisure Time  +
vs 40-59 		       +
vs no religious preference		    Insuffcient data
Living Standards  +
vs 40-59 		       +
vs no religious preference		   Insuffcient data 
Local Environmental Quality         +
 Insuffcient data 
Mental Health +
vs 18-39 and 40-59  		         +  Insuffcient data 
Physical Health            Insuffcient data
Safety & Security        +
vs no religious preference		    Insuffcient data
Social Connections  +
vs 40-59 		      +
vs no religious preference		    Insuffcient data
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature           Insuffcient data 
Cultural Opportunities           Insuffcient data 
Education     +     Insuffcient data 
Leisure Time           Insuffcient data 
Living Standards            Insuffcient data
Local Environmental Quality           Insuffcient data 
Mental Health           Insuffcient data 
Physical Health           Insuffcient data 
Safety and Security           Insuffcient data 
Social Connections           Insuffcient data 

Wellbeing Matrix for Richfield

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Richfield. Mental Health falls into the red quadrant, indicating that it was found to be of higher than average importance but rated lower than average. Physical Health approaches this quadrant as its rating is only slightly higher than the overall average rating, but its importance is much higher than the overall average importance. It is important to note that all domains except for cultural opportunities have an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

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

Community Action & Connections in Richfield

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Richfield. 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 Richfield, the average score was 3.48. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.22.     

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Richfield. Subtitle: In Richfield, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 1% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 40% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 14% of respondents.

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Richfield. Subtitle: In Richfield, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 11% of respondents.

 In terms of demographic characteristics and community-related questions, age, religion and income played significant roles in how much respondents thought people take action in Richfield (see Table 3). No demographic variables were significantly related to community connectedness, but there is a significant, positive relationship between individuals’ community connectedness and their overall personal wellbeing.

Table 3
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Do people in Richfield take action? +
vs 40-59  		     +
vs no religious preference		 +
$100,000+ >
under $50,000		 Insuffcient Data
Do you feel connected to your community?           Insuffcient Data

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Richfield. Of the 4 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 11 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 73% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 46 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 59% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 30 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.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Mountains, rivers and streams, red rock, lakes, city parks, trails, and farmland were all found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on respondents’ wellbeing.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, the majority of respondents noted that the presence of commercial development (58%) and residential development (55%) in the landscape has a positive influence on their wellbeing. Respondents tended to have a more neutral attitude toward the presence of manufacturing and extractive industry, but over one-third identified the presence of both forms of industry as having a positive influence on their wellbeing.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Richfield Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 70% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 58% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 9% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 55% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 14% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 51% indicated neither, 35% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 10% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 56% indicated neither, 34% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Richfield

Just over half of survey respondents (56%) indicated that they felt the rate of population growth is just right with the remainder split between too fast and too slow. Nearly two-thirds of respondents noted that they felt the pace of economic development is too slow, while 28% said it was just right. Compared to the other cities in the winter 2020 survey, Richfield respondents were more satisfied with population growth rates, but had the second highest percentage of respondents noting that the pace of economic growth was too slow.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Richfield. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Richfield? Data - Too Slow: 14% of respondents; Just Right: 56% of respondents; Too Fast: 18% of respondents; No Opinion: 12% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Richfield. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Richfield? Data - Too Slow: 63% of respondents; Just Right - 28% of respondents; Too Fast - 5% of respondents; No Opinion - 4% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth in Sampled Utah Cities. Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 91% indicated too fast; Lehi - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 83% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 80% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Draper - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Tooele - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 70% indicated too fast. North Logan - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 66% indicated too fast. Moab - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 64% indicated too fast; Nibley - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 60% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nephi - 6% of respondents indicated too slow, 53% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 12% of respondents indicated too slow, 35% indicated too fast; Richfield - 14% of respondents indicated too slow, 18% indicated too fast; Delta - 31% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Helper - 22% of respondents indicated too slow, 8% indicated too fast.

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development in Sampled Utah Cities. Draper - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 44% indicated too fast; Lehi - 9% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nibley - 19% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Moab - 24% of respondents indicated too slow, 62% indicated too fast; North Logan - 29% of respondents indicated too slow, 19% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 35% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 44% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 45% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 47% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Herriman - 48% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated too slow, 15% indicated too fast; Helper - 52% of respondents indicated too slow, 2% indicated too fast; Nephi - 54% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 56% of respondents indicated too slow, 11% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 58% of respondents indicated too slow, 12% indicated too fast; Richfield - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 5% indicated too fast; Tooele - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 10% indicated too fast; Delta - 80% of respondents indicated too slow, 0% indicated too fast.

Risks and Assets for Wellbeing in Richfield

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of local issues were a major or minor risk or major or asset to wellbeing in Richfield (see Table 4).

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Richfield Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 80% of respondents)		 Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 20% of respondents)
Air Quality Substance Abuse
Access to Public Land Electronic Devices
Public Safety Employment Opportunities
Access to Quality Food Opportunities for Youth
Recreation Opportunities Affordable Housing

Respondents also wrote in other assets and risks as shown in Table 5. It is clear that some people not only listed current assets, but also those they wish Richfield had.

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Richfield Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Swimming pool/facility improvement (2) Animal care Job opportunity (2) Affordable housing for low income people with pets
Diverse spiritual activities Employment opportunities City government Ignorance
Good trash pick-up Indoor walking track Need new business Political views
Mental health   Restaurants Schools
    Suicide Taxes

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 36 respondents (38% of those that completed the survey). One topic that was brought up frequently was growth and development. Some people said they do not want Richfield to change, but many said they wish to see Richfield grow and bring in more recreation, shopping, and economic activity. People also praised the friendly, small-town atmosphere and feeling of safety that Richfield has to offer.

Dominant themes in comments:

  • Wanting more economic growth
  • Wanting more recreation opportunities
  • Appreciating the friendly small-town community
  • Many people like living in Richfield

A Few Quotes

  • “We need new blood in the community. We need jobs. We need some roads fixed. We need something to keep our young people here. We need options for shopping.”
  • “I would like to see our city bring in more base level jobs. There is real risk of a major economic driver closing down with nothing to replace it.”
  • “We need more public facilities such a recreation center or multipurpose center that can be used for medium to large sized group gatherings. Also would like to see more economic development and an increase in businesses that can support our city”.
  • “I love the small town feeling and the rural atmosphere. I love the clean air and the mountains. I love how friendly people are and think we have a friendly community.”

On This Page