By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Utah Statewide Wellbeing Survey Report

June 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing Survey 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 processes. Questions include rating and importance of ten different domains or categories of wellbeing, change in wellbeing in last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, perspectives on local population growth and economic development, the influence of landscape features on wellbeing, concerns for the future, and an array of demographic characteristic questions. Some cities added additional questions to their survey, particularly regarding housing and transportation.

How was the survey conducted?

In early 2021, 30 cities participated in the Utah Wellbeing Survey. The survey for each city was available online through Qualtrics for at least three weeks. Each participating city advertised the survey via social media, newsletters, utility bills, websites, flyers, local news media or other local mechanisms. All residents in the participating cities age 18+ were encouraged to take the survey.

How many people responded?

A total of 8,017 completed surveys were recorded during this 2021 effort, bringing the total number of surveys completed for the Utah Wellbeing Project since 2019 up to 14,409.

Additional information

Reports summarizing city-specific results from the survey may be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website. This information may help cities refine their messaging with residents on key issues, affirm existing plans, support future planning, and have practical implications for spending and providing services.

This project benefits from the partnership with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which is helping cities envision ways to use the findings from the wellbeing survey to inform their general planning processes.

Survey Cities and Responses

This effort builds upon previous survey efforts in 2019 and 2020. The map below highlights the cities participating in the survey project over time. The surveyed cities fall into three combined clusters according to the Utah League of Cities and Towns. The varying levels of responses correspond to confidence intervals from 4 to 12%.

Map of Wellbeing Project Study Sites

City Clusters for Surveyed Cities and Number of 2021 Survey Responses

Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class &
Established/Mid-Sized Cities

Bountiful 213
Draper 375
Layton 403
Logan 563
Sandy 1,159
South Ogden 194
Tooele 210

Rapid Growth Cities

Ephraim1 101
Herriman 231
Hurricane 271
Hyde Park 328
Lehi 243
Nephi1 144
Nibley 305
North Logan 102
Santaquin 241
Saratoga Springs 157
Spanish Fork 770
Vineyard 379

Traditional Rural Communities &
Rural Hub/Resort Cities

Blanding 282
Delta 90
East Carbon 104
Helper 100
La Verkin2 150
Moab 443
Price 230
Richfield 65
Vernal 98
Wellington 66

 [1] Ephraim and Nephi are classified as Rural Hub/Resort City by ULCT, but were included here with Rapid Growth Cities in this study due to their population growth rate.
[2] La Verkin is classified as a Rapid Growth City by ULCT, but was included here with Rural Hub/Resort Cities due to smaller population and lower growth rate.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

The survey respondents come from 29 cities in Utah. They were not selected to be fully representative of the state of Utah. Nevertheless, they do provide insights into statewide experiences of wellbeing and beyond. The table below compares the demographic characteristics of the survey respondents from all 29 cities with the Utah census information. People age 18-29, males, Hispanics/Latinos, nonwhites and those with household incomes under $25,000 were underrepresented in the survey sample. People with a college degree, those who are married, those who have children under 18 in their household, and those who own their home are overrepresented in the survey sample. 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. 

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

Demographic Characteristics Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=194)
American Community Survey
2015-2019 Estimates
Age 18-29 10.3% 27.0%
Age 30-39 25.0% 20.5%
Age 40-49 24.3% 16.7%
Age 50-59 15.9% 13.8%
Age 60-69 15.0% 12.0%
Age 70 or over 9.6% 10.1%
Adult female 63.8% 50.1%
Adult male 35.7% 49.9%
Gender non-conforming/non-binary 0.5% NA
No college degree 41.9% 66.0%
College degree (4-year) 58.1% 34.0%
Median household income NA $71,621
Income under $25,000 5.4% 13.1%
Income $25,000-$49,999 13.3% 19.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 20.5% 19.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 20.1% 15.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 23.6% 18.5%
Income $150,000 or over 17.0% 13.6%
Latter-day Saint 56.0% NA
Other religion 19.0% NA
No religious preference 25.0% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.8% 14.0%
White 94.5% 86.4%
Nonwhite 5.5% 13.6%
Married 82.2% 55.7%
Children under 18 in household 51.8% 40.8%
Employed (combined) 65.9% 66.1%
Out of work and looking for work 1.2% 2.4%
Other 32.9% 31.5%
Own home/owner occupied 87.7% 70.2%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 12.3% 29.8%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Cities

The average overall personal wellbeing score for all surveyed Utahns was 3.99 on a scale from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent). The figures below show the city scores for overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing within their cluster type. Scores for overall personal and community wellbeing were lower for Rural, Rural Hub and Resort Cities (average 3.94 and 3.57) than for Rapid Growth Cities (average 4.00 and 3.66) and Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class and Established/Mid-sized Cities (average 4.00 and 3.70). These scores have been weighted by population and sample size, but not by demographics.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.
Overall community wellbeing 2021

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: How would you rate your wellbeing 1 being very poor 5 being excellent? Data for Overall Wellbeing- Draper – 14% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 86% rated 4 or 5; Sandy - 17% rated 1,2, or 3 while 83% rated 4 or 5; South Ogden – 19% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 81% rated 4 or 5; Bountiful – 22% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 78% rated 4 or 5; Layton – 24% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 76% rated 4 or 5; Tooele – 31% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 69% rated 4 or 5; Logan – 32% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 86% rated 4 or 5; Vineyard – 15% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 85% rated 4 or 5; Nibley – 15% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 85% rated 4 or 5; Hyde Park – 16% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 84% rated 4 or 5; North Logan – 17% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 83% rated 4 or 5; Spanish Fork – 20% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 80% rated 4 or 5; Hurricane – 20% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 80% rated 4 or 5; Saratoga Springs – 21% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 79% rated 4 or 5; Nephi – 21% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 79% rated 4 or 5; Santaquin – 23% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 77% rated 4 or 5; Lehi – 25% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 75% rated 4 or 5; Herriman – 27% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 73% rated 4 or 5; Ephraim – 27% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 73% rated 4 or 5; Richfield – 16% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 84% rated 4 or 5; Helper – 22% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 78% rated 4 or 5; Wellington – 24% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 76% rated 4 or 5; La Verkin – 27% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 73% rated 4 or 5; Moab – 29% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 71% rated 4 or 5; Blanding – 29% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 71% rated 4 or 5; East Carbon – 30% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 70% rated 4 or 5; Price – 32% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 68% rated 4 or 5; Delta – 33% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 67% rated 4 or 5; Vernal – 46% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 54% rated 4 or 5. Data for Community Wellbeing – Bountiful – 26% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 74% rated 4 or 5; Draper – 30% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 70% rated 4 or 5; Sandy – 32% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 68% rated 4 or 5; Layton – 34% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 66% rated 4 or 5; South Ogden – 35% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 65% rated 4 or 5; Logan – 49% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 51% rated 4 or 5; Tooele – 55% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 45% rated 4 or 5; Hyde Park – 20% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 80% rated 4 or 5; North Logan – 25% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 75% rated 4 or 5; Vineyard – 26% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 74% rated 4 or 5; Spanish Fork – 30% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 70% rated 4 or 5; Nibley – 31% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 69% rated 4 or 5; Hurricane – 36% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 64% rated 4 or 5; Saratoga Springs – 39% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 61% rated 4 or 5; Lehi – 40% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 60% rated 4 or 5; Nephi – 41% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 59% rated 4 or 5; Santaquin – 41% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 59% rated 4 or 5; Ephraim – 43% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 57% rated 4 or 5; Herriman – 46% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 54% rated 4 or 5; Richfield – 27% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 73% rated 4 or 5; Helper – 41% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 59% rated 4 or 5; La Verkin – 44% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 56% rated 4 or 5; Wellington – 44% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 56% rated 4 or 5; Delta – 48% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 52% rated 4 or 5; Blanding – 51% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 49% rated 4 or 5; Vernal – 54% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 46% rated 4 or 5; Price – 59% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 41% rated 4 or 5; Moab – 65% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 35% rated 4 or 5; East Carbon– 65% rated 1, 2, or 3 while 35% rated 4 or 5;

Wellbeing Domains

The survey asked respondents to rate their wellbeing for ten domains and indicate the importance of these domains to their overall wellbeing. The matrix graph below shows the relationship between the ratings and the importance of the ten wellbeing domains for the combined and unweighted statewide data. These variables were measured on 5-point scales. For all Utahns surveyed in 2021, the highest rated domains were Living Standards, Safety and Security and Connection with Nature. The most important domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, and Physical Health. Local Environmental Quality was the only domain falling in the “red zone” quadrant for higher importance, but lower than average ratings. Physical Health, Mental Health, and Leisure Time approach this zone. Rural communities were more likely to have high ratings for Connection with Nature and Local Environmental Quality. Statewide, and for each city, Cultural Opportunities was the lowest rated and least important. The city matrix graphs varied considerably and the domain scores also varied across demographic groups. This graph has not been weighted by population, sample size or demographics.

Scatterplot. Title: Utah 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. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time,  Social Connections, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality.
Red Zone Domains for Study Cities (Domains with High Importance Scores and Lower Ratings)

Physical Health

Local Environmental Quality

Mental Health

Leisure Time Safety and Security None

Blanding

Delta

Ephraim

Helper

Hyde Park

Layton

Price

Santaquin

Spanish Fork

Tooele

Vernal

Wellington

Bountiful

Draper

East Carbon

Herriman

Lehi

Logan

Moab

Sandy

Saratoga Springs

Blanding

Delta

Ephraim

Helper

Logan

Moab

Price

Vernal

Delta

Ephraim

Herriman

Price

Richfield
East Carbon

Hurricane

La Verkin

Nephi

North Logan

South Ogden

Vineyard

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, income, length of residence, city cluster type, children in household, and marital status were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < .05). The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Colors indicate the strongest relationships (p < .001).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Utah

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables      
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less Rural Children in Household Married
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +   + + +   vs Rapid Growth   +
Wellbeing in City

+

+ +  + +
+    
Connection to Nature +
  +   +   +  
Cultural Opportunities +
   +  +      
Education +
vs 40-59
  + +  +    
Leisure Time +
  + + vs A/A/NRP +   +  
Living Standards + + + +  +     +
Local Environmental Quality +   + + +   +    
Mental Health + + + +
     
Physical Health     + + vs A/A/NRP  +
     
Safety & Security +
vs 40-59
+ +
  + vs Large Cities    
Social Connections +   +
+      
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less Rural Children in Household Married
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature   + +   + +
Cultural Opportunities + + + vs Other   +      
Education
vs 18-39
+ + + vs A/A/NRP  +   +  
Leisure Time – 
vs 18-39
  + +
  +  
Living Standards
vs 18-39
+     +        
Local Environmental Quality +

+   + +      
Mental Health
vs 18-39
 +     + +      
Physical Health +
 + + vs A/A/NRP +   + vs Rapid Growth    
Safety and Security +
vs 40-59
 +
 
  + +   +  
Social Connections +
vs 40-59
 + + + vs A/A/NRP            
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

COVID-19 Impacts on Wellbeing

Findings indicate that personal and community wellbeing declined in the last year corresponding to the COVID-19 Pandemic for between 27% and 79% of respondents. The graphs below indicate that the rate of decline varied across the study cities in Utah.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Change in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: Has wellbeing changed in the last year? Data for Overall Personal Wellbeing- Moab – 62% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 18% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Vernal – 54% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 23% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Logan – 53% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 24% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Tooele – 51% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 21% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Lehi – 50% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 22% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Blanding – 49% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 22% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Herriman – 49% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 20% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Layton – 48% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 21% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Bountiful – 47% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 18% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Delta – 47% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 22% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Draper – 46% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 20% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Richfield – 46% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 27% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Ephraim – 45% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 26% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Sandy – 45% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 19% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; South Ogden – 45% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 20% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Price – 45% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 19% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Santaquin – 44% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 26% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Spanish Fork – 41% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 23% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Nibley – 39% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 27% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Nephi – 39% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 20% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; North Logan – 38% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 24% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Hurricane – 37% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 25% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Saratoga Springs – 36% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 32% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Helper – 35% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 21% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; La Verkin – 35% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 26% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Wellington – 35% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 18% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Hyde Park – 35% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 27% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Vineyard – 34% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 36% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; East Carbon – 34% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 16% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially. Data for Community Wellbeing – Moab – 79% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 7% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Vernal – 66% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 7% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Logan – 61% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 12% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Blanding – 59% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 11% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Price – 55% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 11% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Lehi – 55% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 13% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Herriman – 54% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 10% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Tooele – 52% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 15% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Santaquin – 49% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 18% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; East Carbon – 49% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 10% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Layton – 48% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 11% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Delta – 48% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 12% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Nephi – 46% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 8% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Bountiful – 46% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 13% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Nibley – 46% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 10% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Draper – 45% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 10% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Ephraim – 43% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 18% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Saratoga Springs – 43% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 23% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; South Ogden – 42% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 11% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; North Logan – 41% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 15% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Sandy – 39% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 9% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Hurricane – 38% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 16% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; La Verkin – 37% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 17% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Richfield – 37% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 17% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Spanish Fork – 36% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 23% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Wellington – 33% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 15% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Helper – 32% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 31% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Hyde Park – 32% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 12% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially; Vineyard – 27% indicated wellbeing declined slightly or substantially, while 27% indicated wellbeing improved slightly or substantially;

Respondents were asked to indicate if their wellbeing changed in any of the ten domains. Overall, wellbeing declined the most regarding Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities and Mental Health. This information has not been weighted by city population, city sample proportion, or demographic variables.

Type: Likert. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic’s Effect on Wellbeing Domains in Utah Study Cities (2021). Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data- Category: Social Connections – 76% indicated declined, 22% indicated no change, 2% indicated improved; Cultural Opportunities – 70% indicated declined, 29% indicated no change, 1% indicated improved; Mental Health – 56% indicated declined, 41% indicated no change, 3% indicated improved; Leisure Time – 42% indicated declined, 41% indicated no change, 17% indicated improved; Physical Health – 39% indicated declined, 51% indicated no change, 9% indicated improved; Education – 36% indicated declined, 60% indicated no change, 4% indicated improved; Connection with Nature – 30% indicated declined, 51% indicated no change, 18% indicated improved; Living Standards – 22% indicated declined, 71% indicated no change, 6% indicated improved; Safety and Security – 21% indicated declined, 75% indicated no change, 4% indicated improved; Local Environmental Quality – 20% indicated declined, 70% indicated no change, 9% indicated improved;

Who was Affected More by the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Demographic characteristics influenced whether or not respondents indicated their wellbeing declined in the past year with the COVID-19 pandemic. The following findings are from multivariate analysis with survey respondents from all 29 cities.

  • Personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for female respondents, non-Latter-day Saints, those with lower incomes and those living in their city longer than 5 years.
  • Community wellbeing was more likely to decline for those age 60+, females, non-Latter-day Saints, those with lower incomes, those living in their city longer than 5 years, and respondents from rural locations.
  • Social connections were more likely to decline for those age 60+, Females, those with a college degree, and those from larger and rapid growth cities.
  • Cultural opportunities were more likely to decline for those age 60+, females, those with a college degree, Latter-day Saints, and those from larger or rapid growth cities.
  • Mental health was more likely to decline for those under age 60, females, those indicating Atheist/Agnostic/No Preference on Religion, and those with lower incomes.
  • Other demographic characteristics were related to other domains that were less likely to decline in general. Inquire with Dr. Courtney Flint for more details on other domains.

Community Connectedness

The survey asked, “In [city], to what degree do you feel connected to your community?” and ‘In [city], to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities” on 5-point scales. Community connectedness and perceptions of local action were higher for respondents from the Traditional Rural, Rural Hub, and Resort Cities (3.16 and 3.32 respectively), followed by Rapid Growth Cities (3.03 and 3.20), and Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class and Established/Mid-Sized Cities (2.90 and 3.02).

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;

Across the state, those with higher levels of community connectedness reported higher levels of personal wellbeing.  Further, the more connected people felt to their city as a community, the less likely they were to experience a decline in wellbeing due to COVID-19. This relationship has not been weighted by city population, city sample proportion, or demographic variables.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Connection in Utah Study Cities (2021). Of the 40 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1, 98% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 2% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 257 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 2, 93% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 7% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 1278 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 84% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 16% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 3473 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 4, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 1980 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 5, 51% indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Landscapes and Wellbeing

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of various landscape features on their wellbeing. As the graph shows below, natural landscapes had a predominantly positive influence on wellbeing, while respondents were more divided about development and industry.

Graph 1: Type: Likert. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Utahns’ Wellbeing within Established and Midsized cities and cities of the 1st and 2nd classes. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Data – Category: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 69% indicated positively or very positively; Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 68% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 24% indicated positively or very positively; Residential Development - 26% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 22% indicated positively or very positively; Manufacturing Industry - 42% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively; - Extractive Industry 58% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively. Graph 2: Type: Likert. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Utahns’ Wellbeing within Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Data – Category: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 67% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 33% indicated positively or very positively; Residential Development - 37% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 22% indicated positively or very positively; Manufacturing Industry - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 12% indicated positively or very positively; - Extractive Industry 51% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively. Graph 3: Type: Likert. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Utahns’ Wellbeing within Rural Hub/Resort & Traditional Rural Communities. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Data – Category: Mountains - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 70% indicated positively or very positively; Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 27% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 38% indicated positively or very positively; Residential Development - 20% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 42% indicated positively or very positively; Manufacturing Industry - 19% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 50% indicated neither, 32% indicated positively or very positively; - Extractive Industry 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 29% indicated positively or very positively.

Development and Industry in the Landscape

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of residential and commercial development and manufacturing and extractive industry in their landscape on their personal wellbeing. The graphs below shows that rural communities were more positive about development and industry than their urban counterparts, with the exception of Moab.

Graph: Scatter Plot. Title: Influence of Residential and Commercial Development on Wellbeing. Subtitle: Average Responses in Participating Utah Cities. (Position on Plot is represented in coordinates where the X- axis is commercial development and y axis is residential development) Category: Established Mid-sized Cities- Draper- (-0.2896, -0.3463); Sandy- (-0.2505, -0.3117); Layton- (-0.2341, -0.2197); South Ogden (-0.1543, -0.2457); Bountiful ( -0.0725, -0.1192); Logan (-0.0304, -0.1318); Tooele (0.1547, -0.0718); Rapid Growth Cities- Nibley (-0.4080, -0.4160); Lehi (-0.2886, -0.3317), Hyde Park (-0.0230, -0.0855); Spanish Fork (-0.0183, -0.1915); Hurricane (0.000, -0.2743); Herriman (0.0374, -0.6310); North Logan (0.1183, -0.0215); Nephi (0.2171, -0.1395); Santaquin (0.1313, -0.3939); Saratoga Springs (0.1278, -0.5188); Ephraim (0.2717, 0.2418); Vineyard (0.4032, 0.1111); Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural communities- Moab (-0.7304, -0.0784), La Verkin (0.1145, 0.0153); Helper (0.2750, 0.3250); East Carbon (0.2386, 0.5000); Vernal (0.4368, 0.2069); Richfield (0.4655, 0.4138), Price (0.5208, 0.5313); Blanding (0.5488, 0.6389); Wellington (0.6000, 0.6182); Delta (0.6711, 0.6053).

Graph: Scatter Plot. Title: Influence of Extractive and Manufacturing Development on Wellbeing. Subtitle: Average Responses in Participating Utah Cities. (Position on Plot is represented in coordinates where the X- axis is Extractive development and y axis is Manufacturing development). Category: Established Mid-Sized Cities- Draper (-1.1134, -0.6388), Bountiful (-0.8342, -0.6062); Sandy (-0.8181, -0.5129); South Ogden (-0.7600, -0.4686); Layton (-0.6561, -0.4249); Logan (-0.5578, -0.1947); Tooele (-0.4862, -0.1538); Category: Rapid Growth Cities- Saratoga Springs (-0.8647, -0.5564); Vineyard (-0.8508, -0.6190), Nibley (-0.8000, -0.5720); Herriman (-0.6898, -0.5829); Lehi (-0.7327, -0.4901s); North Logan (-0.7312, -0.1935); Hyde Park (-0.6073, -0.2277); Santiquin ( -0.5455, -0.3147); Spanish Fork (-0.4970, -0.1991); Hurricane (-0.3867, -0.0398); Ephraim (-0.2500, -0.0217); Nephi (-0.0930, 0.2016); Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities- Moab (-0.9066, -0.2826), La Verkin (-0.3893, -0.0229); Helper (-0.0875, 0.2250); Richfield (0.1724, 0.2759); East Carbon (0.3933, 0.2022); Vernal (0.3908, 0.3874); Blanding (0.4028, 0.4074), Price (0.4115, 0.4531); Delta (0.5789, 0.5789); Wellington (0.6296, 0.5818).

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

For most cities, there were differences in perspectives over population growth versus economic growth. While many city respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast, there were quite a few respondents indicating they felt the pace of economic development was too slow. The graphs below reveal that Draper, Lehi, and Moab respondents predominantly indicated both population growth and economic development were “too fast”. In the smaller cities of La Verkin, Richfield, Delta, and Helper, the largest group of respondents was more likely to indicate population growth is “just right”, but that economic development is “too slow."

Graph 1. Type: Likert Graph. Title: Citizens’ Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: How Would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data – Draper 0% rated too slow, 72% too fast; Layton 1% rated too slow, 71% rated too fast; Tooele 2% rated too slow, 76% rated too fast; Logan 3% rated too slow, 61% rated too fast; Sandy 1% rated too slow, 58% rated too fast; South Ogden 1% rated too slow, 52% rated too fast; Bountiful 3% rated too slow, 48% rated too fast; Herriman 1% rated too slow, 90% rated too fast; Lehi 0% rated too slow, 94% rated too fast; Hurricane 2% rated too slow, 80% rated too fast; Saratoga Springs 2% rated too slow, 79% rated too fast; Santaquin 0% rated too slow, 76% rated too fast; Nibley 1% rated too slow, 74% rated too fast; Spanish Fork 0% rated too slow, 70% rated too fast; Vineyard 0% rated too slow, 68% rated too fast; Nephi 5% rated too slow, 58% rated too fast; North Logan 0% rated too slow, 57% rated too fast; Hyde Park 2% rated too slow, 55% rated too fast; Ephraim 6% rated too slow, 35% rated too fast; Moab 6% rated too slow, 62% rated too fast; La Verkin 9% rated too slow, 46% rated too fast; Vernal 14% rated too slow, 29% rated too fast; Delta 18% rated too slow, 17% rated too fast; Richfield 7% rated too slow, 14% rated too fast; Helper 15% rated too slow, 11% rated too fast; Blanding 19% rated too slow, 10% rated too fast; Price 32% rated too slow, 9% too fast; East Carbon 35% rated too slow, 9% rated too fast; Wellington 33% rated too slow, 4% rated too fast. Graph 2. Type: Likert Graph. Title: Citizens’ Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: How Would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data – Draper 3% rated too slow, 59% too fast; Layton 8% rated too slow, 42% rated too fast; Tooele 37% rated too slow, 28% rated too fast; Logan 24% rated too slow, 30% rated too fast; Sandy 6% rated too slow, 37% rated too fast; South Ogden 17% rated too slow, 25% rated too fast; Bountiful 20% rated too slow, 19% rated too fast; Herriman 28% rated too slow, 39% rated too fast; Lehi 5% rated too slow, 61% rated too fast; Hurricane 22% rated too slow, 47% rated too fast; Saratoga Springs 33% rated too slow, 30% rated too fast; Santaquin 23% rated too slow, 38% rated too fast; Nibley 10% rated too slow, 47% rated too fast; Spanish Fork 2% rated too slow, 47% rated too fast; Vineyard 41% rated too slow, 20% rated too fast; Nephi 37% rated too slow, 20% rated too fast; North Logan 17% rated too slow, 20% rated too fast; Hyde Park 11% rated too slow, 25% rated too fast; Ephraim 39% rated too slow, 13% rated too fast; Moab 12% rated too slow, 73% rated too fast; La Verkin 27% rated too slow, 27% rated too fast; Vernal 64% rated too slow, 4% rated too fast; Delta 57% rated too slow, 1% rated too fast; Richfield 34% rated too slow, 9% rated too fast; Helper 33% rated too slow, 1% rated too fast; Blanding 51% rated too slow, 4% rated too fast; Price 75% rated too slow, 1% too fast; East Carbon 79% rated too slow, 1% rated too fast; Wellington 66% rated too slow, 0% rated too fast.

Concerns for the Future of Utah Cities

Top concerns varied across cities. The percentage of respondents indicating moderate or major concern are listed for those over 60% for each cluster. Concerns for each city are found in their city report. The concerns below were not weighted by city population, city sample proportion, or demographic variables.

Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class/Established Mid-Sized Cities

  • Air Quality 84%
  • Water Supply 74%
  • Roads and Transportation 73%
  • Affordable Housing 71%
  • Public Safety 68%
  • Recreation Opportunities 66%
  • Access to Public Land 64%
  • Opportunities for Youth 63%

Rapid Growth Cities

  • Roads and Transportation 71%
  • Air Quality 69%
  • Water Supply 66%
  • Affordable Housing 64%
  • Public Safety 63%
  • Access to Public Land 62%
  • Opportunities for Youth 62%
  • Recreation Opportunities 61%

Traditional Rural/Rural Hub and Resort Cities

  • Opportunities for Youth 83%
  • Water Supply 79%
  • Employment Opportunities 74%
  • Affordable Housing 73%
  • Substance Abuse 70%
  • Access to Public Land 69%
  • Recreation Opportunities 67%
  • Access to Quality Food 66%
  • Roads and Transportation 65%
  • Public Safety 62%
  • Social & Emotional Support 61%
  • Access to Mental Health Care 60%
  • Access to Health Care 60%

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.