By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Richfield Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Summary

Richfield 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 Richfield survey with initial information on changes since 2020 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, Richfield City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter and water bills, social media, local radio, and the city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 65 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 88% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 94 responses. The 2020 Richfield Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Richfield was estimated at 5,238 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 65 survey responses represent 1.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 12.08%. Based on these numbers, these survey findings should not be considered representative of the full city of Richfield. 

Key Findings in Richfield

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Richfield were above average among 29 study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Mental Health
  • Living Standards

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Leisure Time

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 46% of respondents.

More than a quarter of respondents indicated that they had experienced feeling depressed, lonely, or anxious more often than before the COVID-19 pandemic. 

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 Richfield were:

  • Opportunities for Youth (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Youth Vaping/E-Cigarettes (75% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Recreation Opportunities (72% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (68% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (65% Moderate or Major Concern)

Internet access and options was a top additional concern written in by 30 people.

The availability of preferred type and price of housing were the greatest obstacles to those seeking new housing. These obstacles were highlighted by more people in 2021 than in 2020.

What do people value most about Richfield ? 
Small town feel, good economy, quiet and peacefulness, and access to nature.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Richfield 98.5%
Part Time Residents of Richfield 1.5%
Length of Residency - Range 0.5-75 years
Length of Residency - Average 22 years
Length of Residency - Median 20 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 24.6%

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 Richfield. People who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, own their home, and have children in household were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 are particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics. 

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

Demographic Characteristics Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2020 (N=94) 2021 (N=65)
Age 18-29 10.2% 7.1% 22.6%
Age 30-39 27.3% 26.8% 22.2%
Age 40-49 20.5% 23.2% 15.3%
Age 50-59 8.0% 17.9% 14.1%
Age 60-69 17.0% 14.3% 15.0%
Age 70 or over 17.0% 10.7% 10.8%
Adult female 54.5% 66.1% 49.3%
Adult male 45.5% 33.9% 50.7%
No college degree 65.5% 48.2% 77.1%
College degree (4-year) 34.5% 51.8% 22.9%
Median household income NA NA $48,776
Income under $25,000 5.8% 0.0% 26.0%
Income $25,000-$49,999 22.1% 19.6% 26.7%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 36.0% 30.4% 15.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 14.0% 21.4% 14.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.3% 19.6% 13.6%
Income $150,000 or over 5.8% 9.0% 4.2%
Latter-day Saint 70.1% 87.3% NA
Other religion 12.6% 5.5% NA
No religious preference 17.2% 7.3% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 1.9% 3.7%
White 98.9% 96.4% 95.2%
Nonwhite 1.1% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 3.6% 4.8%
Married 81.6% 87.3% 54.6%
Children under 18 in household 53.4% 61.8% 45.3%
Employed (combined) 60.3% 69.6% 54.3%
Out of work and looking for work 1.1% 0.0% 4.3%
Other 38.6% 30.4% 41.5%
Own home/owner occupied NA 96.4% 63.3%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 3.6% 36.7%

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 both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Richfield was 4.13, with 84% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Richfield was 3.88 with 73% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Richfield Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 12% of respondents; 4: 52% 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: 0% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from Richfield, the average personal wellbeing score stayed the same and the community wellbeing score increased from 3.66 to 3.88. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing From 2020-2021 in Richfield. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.12, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.66, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.12, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.88.

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 46% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 37% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Richfield declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Richfield. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 3%; Declined slightly: 43%; No change: 27%; Improved slightly: 22%; Improved Substantially: 5%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Richfield. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Richfield changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 5%; Declined slightly: 32%; No change: 46%; Improved slightly: 17%; Improved Substantially: 0%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Richfield as a Rural Hub City (and we combine this with Traditional Rural Communities). Within this cluster of cities, Richfield was highest in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Richfield was only statistically significantly different from Vernal in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it was statistically significantly higher than Vernal, Price, Moab, and East Carbon on overall community wellbeing.

 

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


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

Wellbeing Domains in Richfield

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 Richfield were Safety and Security, Local Environmental Quality, and Living Standards. The three most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Mental 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 - 15% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 85% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards – 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% 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? Physical Health - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 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 - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 21% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 79% 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: 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 - 33% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 45% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 55% rated as important or very important.

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. Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Mental Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Leisure Time fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that it was of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Physical Health approaches thisquadrant 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: 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: Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health. lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality, Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connection, Education, Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time.

Changes in Wellbeing Over Time

The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Richfield residents.


Wellbeing domain ratings over time in RichfieldDot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Richfield, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.95; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 4.15, 2021- 3.15; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.95, 2021- 3.75, Category: Education- 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.3; Category: Physical Health 2020- 3.7, 2021 3.65; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.8; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.95, 2021- 4.0; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.5, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.5; 2021- 3.4, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.85 , 2021- 2.7.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Improvements were reported in Leisure Time for 20% of respondents and Connection with Nature for 17% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Richfield. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 64% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 34% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 63% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 37% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 39% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 58% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 20% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 41% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 39% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 56% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 17% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 66% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 17% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education-  25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 14% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 78% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category:  Local Environmental Quality- 19% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 10% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 85% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

Emotional Impacts from COVID-19

Richfield City asked about emotional issues and COVID-19. While many did not experience negative emotions or a decline in positive emotions, there were clearly people in Richfield who felt an emotional impact from the COVID-19 pandemic and its related challenges. 

Likert Graph. Title: Since the Covid-19 Pandemic, How Would You Describe Your General Mental State Related to the Following Feelings? Category: Feeling Anxious 6% of respondents reported less than before the Pandemic, 45% reported about the same as before the Pandemic, 48% of respondents reported more than before the pandemic; Category: Feeling Lonely 10% Less than before the pandemic, 61% about the same as before the pandemic, 29% more than before the pandemic; Category: Feeling Depressed 11% reported less often than before the pandemic, 63% reported about the same as before the pandemic, 26% more often than before the pandemic; Category Feeling Content or Untroubled 24% reported less often than before the pandemic, 60% reported about the same as before the pandemic, 16% reported more often than before the pandemic.

 

Community Action & Connections in Richfield

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection 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 3.14. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.17.

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: 5% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 28% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Richfield. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Richfield as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 22% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 22% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 17% of respondents

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Richfield. Of the 2 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 8 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 28 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 54% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 20 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 55% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% 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. Richfield is in the mid-range on perceived community action and in the top 5 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 Richfield was 3.07. Church group activities (70%) was the most common activities for respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Richfield. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 71% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 51% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 35% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 47% 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. 23% 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 a bit more divided.

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, 3% indicated neither, 97% 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, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 10% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 48% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development – 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 10% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 55% indicated neither, 34% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 62% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Richfield survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (62%), but they were more evenly distributed on the pace of economic development, with 47% indicating just right, 34% indicating too slow, and 9% indicating too fast.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Richfield. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Richfield? Data – 7% of respondents rated too slow; 62% of respondents rated just right; 14% of respondents rated too fast, 17% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Richfield. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Richfield? Data – 34% of respondents rated too slow; 47% of respondents rated just right; 9% of respondents rated too fast; 10% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Richfield 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 Richfield

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Richfield. Opportunities for Youth, Youth Vaping & E- Cigarettes, and Recreation Opportunities were the top four concerns with 72% to 81% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Richfield. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Richfield, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing-  42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 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 Healthcare- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Category: Youth Vaping/E-Cigarettes- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern  at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 11 respondents who filled in the “other” category. 

Other Concerns Mentioned

Access to internet choices (1)

Community recreation center (1)
Justice system (1)

Misuse of public lands – trash, off-trail OHV travel, human waste, etc. (1)

Opportunity for the disabled people (1)

Safe sidewalks (1)

Technology development. I oppose 5g. Medical freedom. I oppose health department power. (1)

The library (1)

The youth need so much more and jobs!! (1)

Too much growth (1)

Unneeded business (1)

 

Summary of Open Comments

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


Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Richfield. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 39 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small Town Feel, connected, Friendly; Category: Natural Resources- 14 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Good Air Quality, Nice Climate, Farmland/Open Space. City Character- 11 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Quiet/Peaceful, Good Location, Good Quality of Life, Freedom/Privacy; Category: Safety Mentions- 9, Boxes largest to smallest include Feels Safe, Low Crime Rate; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 23 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Good Economy, Abundant Recreation, Not Much Traffic, Good Schools, Good Housing, good Pace of Growth.

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.