Utah Statewide Wellbeing Survey Report
June 2021
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%.
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.
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.
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 |
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 |
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 |
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.