By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Saratoga Springs Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Saratoga Springs 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 Saratoga Springs City survey with 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, Saratoga Springs City advertised the survey via city newsletter and social media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 157 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 84% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 377 responses and the 2019 iPad survey had 131 responses. The full Saratoga Springs Wellbeing Survey reports from 2020 and 2019 are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Saratoga Springs was estimated at 16,027 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 157 survey responses in 2021 represent 1.0% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 7.78%.

Key Findings Saratoga Spring

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs were just above average among 29 study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Safety and Security

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Local Environmental Quality

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 35% of respondents. Community wellbeing in Saratoga Springs declined in the last year for 42% of respondents, and was more likely to decline for those with a college degree and less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints (versus those with no religious preference). 

Manufacturing and Extractive Industry were seen to have negative influences on wellbeing for the majority of respondents, though Natural Landscapes were highly positive.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast, but there was more division over the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Saratoga Springs were:

  • Roads and Transportation (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Public Land (69% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Saratoga Springs?
Access to nature, sense of community, good location, good trails and feeling safe.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Saratoga Springs 99.4%
Part Time Residents of Saratoga Springs 0.6%
Length of Residency - Range 0-20 years
Length of Residency - Average 7 years
Length of Residency - Median 5 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 58.0%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2021 survey respondents were not fully representative of Saratoga Springs. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, and are married were overrepresented. 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 Saratoga Springs

Demographic Characteristics iPad Survey Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2019 (N=131) 2020 (N=377) 2021 (N=157)
Age 18-29 19.2% 12.7% 15.0% 25.5%
Age 30-39 37.7% 40.9% 38.3% 32.3%
Age 40-49 23.8% 28.8% 24.8% 23.2%
Age 50-59 13.1% 10.2% 10.5% 7.5%
Age 60-69 3.1% 5.0% 6.0% 7.3%
Age 70 or over 3.1% 2.5% 5.3% 4.2%
Adult female 58.9% 64.8% 64.4% 47.5%
Adult male 41.1% 35.2% 34.1% 52.5% 
No college degree 48.4% 41.8% 34.8% 54.2%
College degree (4-year) 51.6% 58.2% 65.2% 45.8%
Median household income NA NA NA $101,592
Income under $25,000 4.7% 1.3% 2.3% 4.4%
Income $25,000-$49,999 7.9% 4.8% 4.6% 11.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 21.3% 9.6% 16.9% 13.8%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 20.5% 26.4% 28.5% 19.8%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 33.1% 40.4% 30.8% 31.7%
Income $150,000 or over 12.6% 17.5% 17.0% 19.3%
Latter-day Saint 76.6% 69.8% 82.8% NA
Other religion 8.9% 12.9% 6.3% NA
No religious preference 14.5% 17.3% 10.9% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA NA 3.1% 7.1%
White 89.1% 88.8% 93.7% 90.8%
Nonwhite 10.9% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 11.2% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 6.3% 9.2%
Married NA 92.8% 89.2% 70.6%
Children under 18 in household NA 74.4% 69.7% 68.8%
Employed (combined) NA 70.5% 69.9% 68.1%
Out of work and looking for work NA 0.6% 0.0% 1.8% 
Other NA 28.9% 30.1% 30.2%
Own home/owner occupied NA NA 90.9% 83.4%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA NA 9.1% 16.6%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Saratoga Springs. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Saratoga Springs was 4.03 with 79% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Saratoga Springs was 3.66 with 61% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 16% of respondents; 4: 51% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Saratoga Springs? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 44% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 18% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from Saratoga Springs, the average personal wellbeing score decreased from 4.14 to 4.02 and the community wellbeing score decreased slightly from 3.67 to 3.65. 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 Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.14, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.67, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.02, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.65.

In 2019, a 1-10 scale was used for personal and community wellbeing.

Saratoga Springs’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      7.92

Community Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs           
7.71

Converted to 1-5 scale, Saratoga Springs’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      4.14

Community Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs           
4.08

We don't include these in the graph because there is uncertainty in the conversion of scales.

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 35% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 42% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Saratoga Springs declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 6%; Declined slightly: 29%; No change: 32%; Improved slightly: 26%; Improved Substantially: 6%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Saratoga Springs changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 8%; Declined slightly: 34%; No change: 35%; Improved slightly: 19%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Saratoga Springs as Rapid Growth City. Within this cluster of cities, Saratoga Springs is the highest in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and second highest in terms of average community wellbeing score. Saratoga Springs was not statistically significantly different in terms of overall personal wellbeing and was statistically significantly lower than Vineyard, and Hyde Park 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 Saratoga Springs

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 rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Saratoga Springs were Living Standards, Safety and Security, and Mental Health. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health and Physical Health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Saratoga Springs Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards – 21 of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 84% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 16% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% 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 - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 33% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 29% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 55% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 55% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Saratoga Springs

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Saratoga Springs. Living Standards, Safety and Security, and Mental Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Local Environmental Quality fell in the “red zone” of high importance, but lower ratings. Physical Health approaches the red zone because it is of higher than average importance, but near the average on domain rating.

Scatterplot. Title: Saratoga Springs 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: Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time, Connection with Nature, Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality

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 22% of respondents and Leisure Time for 18% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 74% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 25% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 68% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 32% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 59% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 37% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 35% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 47% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 38% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 50% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 12% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 50% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 22% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 39% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 57% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 17% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 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: Safety and Security- 14% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 81% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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

  • Community wellbeing was more likely to decline for with those with a college degree and less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints (versus those indicating Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference).

  • Cultural opportunities were less likely to decline for those with incomes over $150,000 (versus $100,000-$149,999).

  • Leisure time was more likely to decline for those with lower incomes.

  • Social connections were more likely to decline for those with incomes over $150,000 (versus $100,000-$149,999).

     

The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Saratoga Springs residents. Note that the survey method was different in 2019 (with iPads in public places) and the number of respondents changed over time.


Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Saratoga Springs, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards 2019-4.2, 2020- 4.05, 2021- 4.0; Category: Safety and security- 2019- 3.9, 2020- 4.1, 2021- 3.9; Category: Connection with Nature- 2019- 3.7, 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.25, Category: Education- 2019- 4.0 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.4; Category: Physical Health 2019- 4.15, 2020- 3.65, 2021 3.4; Category: Mental Health- 2019- 3.6, 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.55; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2019- 3.6, 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.25; Category: Leisure Time- 2019- 3.75, 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.2, Category: Social Connection- 2019-3.85, 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.3, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2019- 3.45, 2020- 2.75 , 2021- 2.5.

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

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Saratoga Springs

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing       + vs A/A/NRP    
Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs       + vs Other   

Connection to Nature +
vs 18-39		         +
Cultural Opportunities     –   +
  
Education       + vs A/A/NRP    
Leisure Time + +     +  
Living Standards   +   + vs A/A/NRP +
Over $150,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
Local Environmental Quality       +

    
Mental Health       + vs A/A/NRP +
Over $150,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
Physical Health              
Safety & Security       + vs A/A/NRP    
Social Connections       + vs A/A/NRP    
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education –   +  – vs Other     
Leisure Time         +   
Living Standards –
vs 18-39		       +
Over $150,000 >
Under $75,000 		 
Local Environmental Quality           +
Mental Health –
vs 18-39		  + +    +
Over $150,000 >
$75,000-$99,999		  
Physical Health            
Safety and Security –
vs 18-39		  +   + vs A/A/NRP +
 
Social Connections       + vs A/A/NRP     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions  

Community Action & Connections in Saratoga Springs

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Saratoga Springs. 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 Saratoga Springs, the average score was 2.98. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.67.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: In Saratoga Springs, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 29% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 22% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Saratoga Springs as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 13% of respondents; 2: 32% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 14% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

None of the six demographic factors below were found to influence community connection. Respondents identifying as Latter-day Saints had higher levels perceived local action than those who indicated their religion as Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. 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 Saratoga Springstake 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 Saratoga Springs. Of the 7 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 19 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 71 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 80% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 37 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 68% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% 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. Saratoga Springs is in the bottom five on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

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

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Saratoga Springs was 2.37. Church group activities (69%) were the most common activities for respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 69% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 35% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 37% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 32% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 26% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 24% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 13% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided. There was a particularly strong negative perception of industry among Saratoga Springs respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Saratoga Springs 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 - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 65% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 20% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 29% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 42% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development – 47% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 13% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 66% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 1% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Saratoga Springs survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (79%), followed by 17% indicating it was just right. Respondents were more divided on the pace of economic development with 34% indicating it is just right, followed by 33% indicating too slow, and 30% indicating too fast.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Saratoga Springs? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 17% of respondents rated just right; 79% of respondents rated too fast, 2% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Saratoga Springs? Data – 33% of respondents rated too slow; 34% of respondents rated just right; 30% of respondents rated too fast; 3% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Saratoga Springs 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 Saratoga Springs

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Saratoga Springs. Roads and Transportation, Air Quality, and Access to Public Land were top concerns with 69- 88% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Saratoga Springs, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 81% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 18% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 31 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Other Concerns Mentioned
Traffic (5)

Sewer system, stinky smell (2)

Too many apartments/high density housing (2)

City dog park (1)

City planning (1)

Decrease of farmland (1)

Dog leash laws and dog at large laws not strict enough (1)

High home prices (1)

I moved here to be closer to nature. Little did I know we would be building a major road right through where we recreate. (1)

Internet options (1)

Main roads need to be reworked (pioneer crossing) (1)

Nature, trails, parks (1)
Noise (1)

Noise from Redwood Road is excessive (1)

Public transit system (1)

 Racial equity (1)

Non enforcement of zoning codes (1)

Overcrowded schools (1)

Restaurant availability (1)

Road construction (1)

Shrinking lot sizes (1)

Too many houses built too close (1)

Too many neighborhoods with no yards (1)

Too many people (1)

Too many traffic lights (1)

  

Summary of Open Comments

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

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 44 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Connected, Small Town Feel, Friendly, Family-Friendly Category: Natural Resources- 70 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Farmland/Open Space, Dark Skies. City Character- 34 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Good Location, Well-kept City, Quiet and Peaceful, Good Quality of life; Category: Recreation- 26 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include good trails, Good Parks, Abundant Recreation. Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 46 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Feels Safe, Good Amenities, Good Housing, Good Schools, Low Cost of Living, 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, Caitlyn Rogers, Madison Fjeldsted, Avery Sadowski, 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.