Utah Wellbeing Survey - Executive Summary 

September 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing Survey project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents, and provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning processes. In early 2020, 18 cities participated in the Utah Wellbeing Survey.

The 2020 survey was conducted online between late January and mid-March, with each city’s survey open for approximately 3 weeks. Therefore, these data describe wellbeing perspectives just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cities advertised the survey via social media, newsletters, websites, and locally distributed information. All residents in the participating cities age 18 and older were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

A total of 4,354 completed surveys were recorded during this effort.

The survey focused on overall personal and community wellbeing. Questions included rating and importance ten different domains or categories of wellbeing, perspectives on population growth and economic development in Utah cities, the influence of landscape features on wellbeing, various risks and assets in Utah cities, and an array of demographic characteristic questions. A number of cities added additional questions, particularly around the issue of housing.

This report summarizes a few findings from a statewide analysis of wellbeing survey responses from the 18 study communities. You can also find a more detailed statewide report. Each city’s report can be found at https://usu.edu/utah-wellbeing-project/.

This project benefits from the partnership with the Utah League of Cities and Towns who are helping cities envision ways to inform general planning processes with the data and findings from these wellbeing surveys.

Follow up surveys are planned in 2021 and new cities are welcome to join the project. For further information, please contact Dr. Courtney Flint at courtney.flint@usu.edu or (435) 797-8635.

Graphics and analysis by Casey Trout, Mo Christman, and Rachel Sagers.

Survey Cities and Responses

The 2020 online effort expanded an initial survey effort in 2019 in which 16 cities were surveyed with a public intercept survey approach using iPads in various locations. The map below highlights the cities participating in the survey project over the last 2 years. 



The surveyed cities fall into three different clusters according to the Utah League of Cities and Towns as shown in the table below along with the number of survey responses for each city. 

Overall Personal Wellbeing

The average overall personal wellbeing score for all surveyed Utahns was 4.07 on a scale from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Excellent). The figure below shows the city scores for overall personal wellbeing within their cluster type. Overall personal wellbeing scores were highest among the rapid growth cities (average 4.10), followed by the established/mid-sized cities (average 4.05), and rural, rural hub and resort cities (average 3.99). The differences among the established/mid-sized cities are significant (p  0.000), but differences are not significant among cities in the other clusters.

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 statewide data. These variables were measured on 5-point scales. Overall, the domains having the highest ratings and importance (in green) were Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Physical Health. Local Environmental Quality was the only domain falling in the “red zone” quadrant for higher importance, but lower ratings. 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.

Red Zone Domains for Study Cities (Domains with High Importance Scores and Lower Ratings)

Local Environmental Quality	Mental Health	Physical Health	Education	Living Standards	Leisure Time	None
Bountiful Draper Herriman Lehi Moab Nibley Saratoga Springs Tooele	Cedar City Nibley Richfield	Cedar City Delta Nephi Nibley North Logan Tooele	Delta	Moab	Saratoga Springs	Eagle Mountain Hurricane La Verkin Santaquin

Community Connections

The survey asked, “In [city], to what degree do you feel connected to your community?” Community connectedness was higher for respondents from the rural, rural hub, and resort cities (3.25) as compared to the established/mid-sized cities (3.09) and rapid growth cities (3.02). There was no significant difference among rural cities on community connectedness. In the established/mid-sized cities, Tooele (2.81) had significantly lower scores on community connectedness compared to the other cities. For the rapid growth cities, Nibley (3.55) and North Logan (3.50) had significantly higher scores, but caution should be taken with these results as the margin of error is higher for these communities.

Across the state, those with higher levels of community connectedness reported higher levels of personal wellbeing.

Influence of Natural Landscapes on 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. These findings are rather consistent across city cluster groups and cities, with a few notable exceptions.

Residential vs Commercial Development in the Landscape

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of residential and commercial development in their landscape on their personal wellbeing. For Delta, Richfield, and Helper, perspectives tended towards the positive influence of both types of development. For Draper, Lehi, and Nibley, perspectives tended towards the negative influence of both types of development. For Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Santaquin and Herriman, perspectives on commercial development were more positive, while perspectives on residential development were more negative.

Manufacturing vs Extractive Industry in the Landscape

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of manufacturing and extractive industry in their landscape on their personal wellbeing. The graph below shows that for Delta and Richfield, perspectives tended towards the positive influence of both types of industry. For many of the other cities, particularly those along the Wasatch Front and Moab, perspectives tended towards the negative influence of both types of industry.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

For most cities, there was a major difference 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”.