By Dr. Courtney Flint | July 8, 2021

Utah County Wellbeing Survey Report

July 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing 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. 

This report summarizes findings from the 2021 survey from five cities in Utah County: Lehi, Santaquin, Saratoga Springs, Spanish Fork, and Vineyard. Please see the individual city reports on the Utah Wellbeing Project website for more details.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, cities in Utah County advertised the survey via social media, email lists, newsletters, local news coverage, and other ways of reaching out to local residents. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

Who responded?

  • 1,790 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort from Utah County.
  • Lehi had 243 responses, Santaquin had 241 responses, Saratoga Springs had 157 responses, Spanish Fork had 770 responses, and Vineyard had 379 responses.
  • Overall, the completed surveys represent the spectrum of residents with regard to income and employment, but underrepresent males, those without a college degree, renters, those without children in their home, and those who were not married.

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. These cities all fall in the Rapid Growth cluster of cities according to the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

Key Findings in Utah County

Overall Personal Wellbeing scores were above average for Vineyard, Spanish Fork, Saratoga Springs, and Santaquin and average for Lehi compared to other study cities. Community Wellbeing scores were above average for Vineyard, Spanish Fork, and Saratoga Springs and average for Santaquin and Lehi compared to other study cities.



Overall Personal Wellbeing in Carbon County Cities


Overall Personal Wellbeing in Carbon County Cities

Wellbeing Domains (Categories)

The Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains for all 5 Utah County study cities were:

  • Living Standards
  • Safety and Security

The Most Important Wellbeing Domains for all 5 Utah County study cities were:

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

The Red Zone Domains (High Importance, Lower Quality) for all 5 Utah County study cities were:

  • Lehi and Saratoga Springs – Local Environmental Quality
  • Santaquin and Spanish Fork – Physical Health
  • Vineyard – none, but Physical Health approaches this zone

COVID-19 Impacts on Wellbeing

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Declines in social connections and cultural opportunities were experienced most by Lehi respondents and mental health declines were experienced most by Santaquin respondents.

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;
Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 35% to 49% of respondents from these 5 cities (highest in Lehi, lowest in Vineyard).

Community wellbeing declined in the last year for 26% to 55% of respondents from these 5 cities (highest in Lehi, lowest in Vineyard).

Community Connectedness and Action

Community Connection and Action were highest for Spanish Fork, whereas the other four Utah County communities scored considerably lower.

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;

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents felt the Rate of Population Growth was too fast, while respondents were more divided over the Pace of Economic Development.

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.

Landscapes and Wellbeing in Utah County Study Cities

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of various landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes such as mountains, rivers, trails, city parks, lakes and farmland were all found to have highly positive impacts on wellbeing. Developed landscapes were mixed in their influence on wellbeing, with Lehi respondents indicating more negative influence of residential and commercial development on wellbeing and all five Utah County study cities indicating a negative influence of manufacturing and extractive industry on wellbeing (common among more urban study cities).

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.

Influence of Manufacturing and Extractive Industry on Wellbeing

Concerns for the Future of Utah County Cities

Top concerns varied across the study cities in Utah County as follows:

Moderate to Major Concerns by Over Two-Thirds of Respondents

  • Lehi
    • Roads & Transportation 81%
    • Air Quality 79%
    • Affordable Housing 75%
    • Water Supply 74%
    • Recreation Opportunities 66%
  • Santaquin
    • Opportunities for Youth 71%
    • Access to Public Land 66%
  • Saratoga Springs
    • Roads & Transportation 88%
    • Air Quality 74%
    • Access to Public Land 69%
  • Spanish Fork
    • Roads & Transportation 69%
    • Affordable Housing 69%
    • Air Quality 69%
  • Vineyard
    • Air Quality 75%
    • Roads & Transportation 74%
    • Public Safety 67%
    • Shopping Opportunities 66%

Other concerns mentioned as “other” concerns specific to each city included:

  • Traffic and a desire for more parks and playgrounds in Lehi
  • Too much high-density housing in Santaquin
  • Traffic in Saratoga Springs
  • Traffic and too much growth in Spanish Fork
  • Parking and high-density housing in Vineyard

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.