By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

South Ogden Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

South Ogden City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2021. 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 South Ogden survey with initial information on changes since 2019 and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, South Ogden City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter, websites, town hall meetings. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 194 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 effort with 83% complete responses. 

  • The adult population of South Ogden was estimated at 12,631 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 194 surveys in 2021 represent 1.5% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.98%.

Key Findings in South Ogden 

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

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Safety and Security

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 45% of respondents and was more likely to decline for those with lower incomes. Mental and physical health were less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints.

Extractive Industry had particularly negative influences on wellbeing for the majority of respondents, though Natural Landscapes like mountains, rivers, and trails were highly positive.

A slight majority of respondents felt Population Growth in South Ogden was too fast. Nearly half of respondents indicated the Pace of Economic Development was just right.

Top concerns for the future of South Ogden were:

  • Public Safety (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (75% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (72% Moderate or Major Concern)

Maintaining or improving roadway surfaces was ranked as the top transportation need by 40% of respondents.

Finding ways to keep existing housing affordable was the top housing strategy, supported by 88% or respondents. 53% of respondents indicated it was not likely they could find affordable housing.

What do people value most about South Ogden? 
Good location, friendliness, feelings of safety, access to nature and outdoor recreation opportunities.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of South Ogden 99.5%
Part Time Residents of South Ogden 0.5%
Length of Residency - Range 0-80 years
Length of Residency - Average 19 years
Length of Residency - Median 16 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 23.7%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of South Ogden. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree or more, are married, have children in household, and own their own home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 were particularly underrepresented and people age 40-59 were particularly 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 South Ogden

Demographic Characteristics South Ogden Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=194)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-29 5.0% 26.1%
Age 30-39 24.4% 24.7%
Age 40-49 26.9% 14.9%
Age 50-59 18.8% 10.5%
Age 60-69 16.3% 11.4%
Age 70 or over 8.8% 12.4%
Adult female 68.9% 51.4%
Adult male 31..1% 48.6%
No college degree 44.7% 71.2%
College degree (4-year) 55.3% 28.8%
Median household income NA $70,552
Income under $25,000 4.6% 11.8%
Income $25,000-$49,999 5.9% 18.1%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 30.7% 25.4%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 21.6% 16.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 23.5% 15.0%
Income $150,000 or over 13.7% 13.2%
Latter-day Saint 49.1% NA
Other religion 30.8% NA
No religious preference 20.1% NA
Hispanic/Latino 3.8% 10.6%
White 94.3% 90.7%
Nonwhite 5.7% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 9.3%
Married 79.5% 55.5%
Children under 18 in household 54.0% 41.2%
Employed (combined) 64.0% 64.5%
Out of work and looking for work 2.5% 0.8%
Other 33.5% 33.4%
Own home/owner occupied 93.2% 74.4%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 6.8% 25.6%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in South Ogden

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in South Ogden. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in South Ogden was 4.05, with 81% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in South Ogden was 3.68 with 65% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in South Ogden Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 55% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 26% of respondents.
Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in South Ogden Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in South Ogden? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 51% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 14% of respondents

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 45% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 42% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in South Ogden declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in South Ogden. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 8%; Declined slightly: 37%; No change: 35%; Improved slightly: 18%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in South Ogden. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in South Ogden changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; Declined slightly: 35%; No change: 47%; Improved slightly: 9%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies South Ogden as an Established Mid-Sized City (we combine these with Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class). Within this cluster of cities, South Ogden falls just above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and for the average community wellbeing score. South Ogden is statistically significantly different from the Tooele and Logan in terms of overall personal wellbeing, and significantly different from all cities in this cluster on overall community wellbeing except for Layton and Sandy.


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 South Ogden

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 South Ogden were Living Standards and Mental Health. The two most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security and Mental Health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in South Ogden Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 70% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 30% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in South Ogden. 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 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 - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 26% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 74% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 33% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 30% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 51% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 49% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for South Ogden

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from South Ogden. Living Standards, Mental Health and Safety and Security were highly important and highly rated. While no domains fall in the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, Physical Health and Local Environmental Quality approach this quadrant as their importance levels were higher than or close to the overall average domain importance, but ratings fell near or below 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: 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: Living Standards, Safety and Security, Mental Health, Physical Health High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education, Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality, Leisure Time, Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: none.

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. 

No change was reported by most South Ogden respondents for the areas of: Living Standards, Local Environmental Quality, Safety and Security, and Education. 

Improvements were reported in Connection to Nature for 18% of respondents and in Leisure Time for 15% of respondents.


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in South Ogden. 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, 24% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVI-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 66% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 33% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 54% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 40% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 7% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 48% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 37% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 15% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 49% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 35% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 47% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 66% 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, 79% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 76% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% 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 South Ogden between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Overall personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for those with lower incomes.

  • Connection with nature was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints.

  • Mental health was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints.

  • Physical health was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints.

  • Safety and security were more likely to decline for those living in South Ogden more than 5 years.

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 South Ogden 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 South Ogden

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

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

Community Action & Connections in South Ogden

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in South Ogden. 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 South Ogden, the average score was 3.01. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.79.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in South Ogden. Subtitle: In South Ogden, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 11% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 24% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in South Ogden. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to South Ogden as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 12% of respondents; 2: 25% of respondents; 3: 40% of respondents; 4: 20% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher perceptions of local action than those with no religious preference or those from other religions. There were no demographic characteristics emerging as statistically significant in relation to community connection. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Color indicates 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 South Ogden take action?       +    
Do you feel connected to your community?            

 

 

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in South Ogden. Of the 4 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 28 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 89% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 97 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 77% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 47 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 64% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% 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. South Ogden is in the lower half on both 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 South Ogden was 2.41. Church group activities were the most common activity for respondents (55%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in South Ogden. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 55% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 37% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 43% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 41% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 31% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 28% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 4% 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 with extractive industry seen as having a negative influence on wellbeing for a majority of South Ogden respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in South Ogden 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 - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 59% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 61% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 35% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 37% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 45% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 59% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 3% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

A slight majority of South Ogden survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (52%), but they were more evenly distributed on the pace of economic development, with 46% indicating just right, 25% indicating too fast, and 17% indicating too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in South Ogden. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in South Ogden? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 34% of respondents rated just right; 52% of respondents rated too fast, 13% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in South Ogden. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in South Ogden? Data – 17% of respondents rated too slow; 46% of respondents rated just right; 25% of respondents rated too fast; 12% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how South Ogden 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 South Ogden

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of South Ogden. Public Safety, Roads and Transportation, Air Quality, and Affordable Housing were top concerns with about three-quarters of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in South Ogden. Subtitle: As you look to the future of South Ogden, 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- 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 56% 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- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 46 respondents who filled in the “other” category. High density housing and Traffic/Speeding were the most common additional concerns.

High density housing

6

 Traffic and speeding

6

Biking trails and lanes, bike safety

2

Crime

2

Noise pollution (incl. HAFB)

2

Social justice (incl redevelopment and zoning)

2

Older homes forgotten, trash and junk 

2

Access to good education (due to overcrowding)

1

Access to broadband internet

1

Barking dogs

1

Affordable housing 

1

City services

1

Boys’ youth home coming in by Catholic Church

1

Green space 

1

Code enforcement 

1

Harrison Blvd and housing developments

1

Handicap accessibility 

1

Lack of concern for citizen opinions on development

1

Infrastructure upgrades and repairs 

1

People refusing to wear masks, especially in churches

1

Parking for apartments/condos 

1

Recycling

1

Problems at Skyline Dr. and Ridgeline

1

Stable long term residents

1

Safe crosswalks 

1

Too many people

1
Taxes 1

Water quality and safety, all the work on the water system

1
Walkability 

1

 

 

Additional South Ogden Questions

South Ogden added additional questions to the survey to inform their general planning process. These questions covered future goals, transportation and housing.

Looking to the future, all items in the survey scored highly, but respondents were most excited about Increased Recreation and Active Lifestyle Opportunities and Improvements/Updates to Existing Neighborhoods.


Likert Graph. Title: As you look to the future of South Ogden, how excited are you about the following potential Opportunities. Category: Increased Recreation and Active Lifestyle Opportunities- 5% of respondents were not at all excited, 21% were slightly excited, 35% were moderately excited, and 40% were very excited. Category: Improvements/Updates to Existing Neighborhoods- 7% of respondents were not at all excited, 21% were slightly excited, 35% were moderately excited, and 38% were very excited. Category: New or Enhanced Community Events- 8% of respondents were not at all excited, 32% were slightly excited, 37% were moderately excited, and 23% were very excited. Category: Additional Restaurants and Cafes-13% of respondents were not at all excited, 34% were slightly excited, 30% were moderately excited, and 23% were very excited. Category: Better Transportation Choices- 15% of respondents were not at all excited, 30% were slightly excited, 38% were moderately excited, and 17% were very excited. Meeting New People: 19% of respondents were not at all excited, 40% were slightly excited, 31% were moderately excited, and 11% were very excited. Category: Expanding Shopping Opportunities: 28% of respondents were not at all excited, 32% were slightly excited, 26% were moderately excited, and 14% were very excited

Other ideas offered on future excitement included:

  • New construction (2)
  • Amphitheater events
  • Community pride
  • Corrupt police
  • Cultural awareness events
  • Don't support mass transit or UTA
  • Farmers’ market
  • Gentrification
  • Concern about mayor’s comments about opposition to multi-family housing.
  • Increased housing costs
  • Just want to visit family because of COVID
  • Multi-family dwellings
  • Parks
  • Pedestrian safety
  • Programs helping residents w waste and resources
  • Promote safety by putting up solar speed signs
  • Proper repair of neighborhood streets
  • Purchasing the golf course to preserve it as open space/public park
  • Quit building multifamily housing and listen to your people
  • Road improvement
  • School crosswalks

Transportation in South Ogden

Regarding transportation, Maintaining or improving roadway surfaces was the most important option for 40% of respondents. Enhancing and/or expanding bicycle and pedestrian paths, crosswalks, sidewalks, and trails was the most important option for 24% of respondents.


Bar Graph. Title: Thinking Specifically About Transportation as You Look to the Future of South Ogden, Which of the Following is Most Important to You? Category: Maintaining Roadway Surfaces- 40% of respondent marked this as most important. Category: Enhancing and/or expanding bicycle and pedestrian paths, crosswalks, sidewalks, and trail- 24% of respondent marked this as most important. Category: Enhancing safety and addressing areas with frequent collisions- 14% of respondent marked this as most important. Category: Adding capacity to major roads and intersections- 8% of respondent marked this as most important. Category: Improving the connections between neighborhoods and neighboring communities 5% of respondent marked this as most important. Category: Working with UTA to improve transit service- 4% of respondent marked this as most important. Category: other- 5% of respondent marked this as most important.

A few additional perspectives were offered:

  • Both bicycle/pedestrian paths and fixing current issues with accidents and potential accidents in city (2)
  • Get rid of UTA. No on rides it (2)
  • Narrowing streets in residential area due to on-road parking
  • Riding buses too expensive
  • Address high speeds on Glasmann Way – dangerous!

South Ogden Housing Questions

The majority of respondents currently live in single-family housing (90%).

Housing Costs

  • 33% of respondents spend more than 30% of total household income on housing costs
  • 31% of respondents spend around 30% of total household income on housing costs
  • 35% of respondents spend less than 35% of total household income on housing costs







    Over half of respondents (53%) indicated that it is not likely that they could find new affordable housing in the next five years if desired or necessary.

     

    Bar Graph. Title: If You Were to Change Your Housing Arrangement in the Next Five Years, How Likely is it That You Could Find New Housing That is Affordable to You in South Ogden if Desired or Necessary? Category: Unsure how likely: 13% of respondents. Category: Not Likely: 53% of respondents. Category: Somewhat Likely: 22% of respondents. Category: 12% of respondents.

     

Affordable Housing Strategies

The vast majority of respondents supported finding ways to keep existing housing affordable. Creating a mix of housing types and sizes was also supported (52%).

Likert Graph. Title: As You Look to the Future of South Ogden, How Supportive are you of the Following Potential Strategies to Help Provide Affordable Housing in South Ogden City? Category: Finding Ways to Keep Existing Housing Affordable- 2% strongly oppose or oppose, 10% Neither oppose nor support, 88% Support or Strongly Support. Create a mix of housing types and sizes- 29% strongly oppose or oppose, 19% Neither Oppose nor Support, 52% Support or Strongly Support. Category: Make it easier for affordable housing types to get approved and built- 31% strongly oppose or oppose, 25% Neither Oppose nor Support, 43% Support or Strongly Support. Category: Provide incentives to build new affordable housing types- 36% strongly oppose or oppose, 22% Neither Oppose nor Support, 42% Support or Strongly Support. Category: Directly subsidizing housing costs for low- to moderate-income households- 44% strongly oppose or oppose, 27% Neither Oppose nor Support, 29% Support or Strongly Support.

Summary of Open Comments

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

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in South Ogden. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 62 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Friendly, connected, Small-Town feel, Family- Friendly, Diverse; Category: Natural Resources- 25 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Environmental Quality. Category: City Character- 78 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Good Location, Quiet and Peaceful, Well-Maintained City, Good Quality of Life. Category: Safety- 38 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include- Feels Safe. Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 51 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Outdoor Recreation Opportunities, Good Economy, Good Schools, Well-Governed, Good Healthcare, Other.

Contact Information
Dr. Courtney Flint
courtney.flint@usu.edu
435-797-8635

On This Page

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Madison Fjeldsted, Jordan Hammon, and Sarah Wilson.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.