By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Wellington Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Wellington City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2021. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 Wellington survey as well as some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In February 2021, Wellington City advertised the survey via social media and local news media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 66 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 this effort with 82% complete responses.  
  • The adult population of Wellington was estimated at 1,070 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The survey responses represent 6.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 11.69%. These numbers suggest that this survey of Wellington should not be considered to be representative of the city’s residents.

Key Findings in Wellington

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Wellington were average among 29 study cities. Personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for those without a college degree.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Connection with Nature
  • Safety and Security

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Physical Health 

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 35% of respondents. Personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for those without a college degree.

The majority of respondents felt the Pace of Economic Development was too slow.

Top concerns for the future of Wellington were:

  • Opportunities for Youth (91% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (83% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Recreation Opportunities (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (78% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (78% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Wellington? 
The connected, small town feel, the quiet and peacefulness, good law enforcement, and good government.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Wellington 99.5%
Part Time Residents of Wellington 1.5%
Length of Residency - Range 1-74 years
Length of Residency - Average 25 years
Length of Residency - Median 20 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 15.2%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were quite representative of Wellington. People who were female, married, have children in the household, and who are employed were particularly overrepresented and people age 18-29 and people who rent their homes were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics. 

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Wellington

Demographic Characteristics Wellington Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=66)
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-29 11.3% 28.8%
Age 30-39 32.1% 15.2%
Age 40-49 15.1% 6.5%
Age 50-59 9.4% 15.0%
Age 60-69 17.0% 15.8%
Age 70 or over 15.0% 18.7%
Adult female 71.2% 58.1%
Adult male 26.9% 41.9%
No college degree 86.5% 85.2%
College degree (4-year) 13.4% 14.8%
Median household income NA $45,375
Income under $25,000 13.5% 35.5%
Income $25,000-$49,999 44.2% 21.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 13.5% 30.9%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 13.5% 6.6%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 9.6% 4.5%
Income $150,000 or over 5.8% 1.5%
Latter-day Saint 57.7% NA
Other religion 21.2% NA
No religious preference 21.2% NA
Hispanic/Latino 5.9% 14.5%
White 98.1% 89.6%
Nonwhite 1.9% 10.4%
Married 81.1% 58.8%
Children under 18 in household 45.3% 25.1%
Employed (combined) 67.9% 44.4%
Out of work and looking for work 3.8% 3.8%
Other 28.3% 51.7%
Own home/owner occupied 94.3% 66.8%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 5.7% 33.2%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Wellington

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Wellington. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Wellington was 4.02, with 76% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Wellington was 3.61 with 56% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Wellington. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 44% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 32% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Wellington. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Wellington? Data - 1 Very Poor: 5% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% of respondents

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 35% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 33% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Wellington declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Wellington. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 5%; Declined slightly: 30%; No change: 47%; Improved slightly: 14%; Improved Substantially: 5%.
Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Wellington. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Wellington changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 9%; Declined slightly: 24%; No change: 52%; Improved slightly: 12%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Wellington as a Traditional Rural Community (and we have combined these with Rural Hub/Resort Cities). Within this cluster, Wellington was right at the average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Wellington was only statistically significantly different from Vernal in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it was statistically significantly higher than Price, Moab, and East Carbon on overall community wellbeing.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.22; Sandy: Average Score 4.13; Bountiful: Average Score 4.06; South Ogden: Average Score 4.05; Layton: Average Score 3.98; Logan: Average Score 3.81; Tooele: Average Score 3.79. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.18; Vineyard: Average Score 4.17; Nibley: Average Score 4.16; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Hurricane: Average Score 4.08; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.06; Nephi: Average Score 4.05; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.03; Santaquin: Average Score 4.00; Lehi: Average Score 3.98; Ephriam: Average Score 3.86; Herriman: Average Score 3.86. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.07; Wellington: Average Score 4.02; La Verkin: Average Score 3.98; Blanding: Average Score 3.88; Moab: Average Score 3.82; East Carbon: Average Score 3.82; Price: Average Score 3.79, Delta: Average Score: 3.78; Vernal: Average Score 3.66.


Overall commDot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Bountiful: Average Score 3.96; Draper: Average Score 3.89; Sandy: Average Score 3.80; Layton: Average Score 3.72; South Ogden: Average Score 3.68; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Tooele: Average Score 3.28. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.06; Vineyard: Average Score 3.95; North Logan: Average Score 3.91; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.87; Nibley: Average Score 3.80; Hurricane: Average Score 3.75; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.66; Lehi: Average Score 3.60; Santaquin: Average Score 3.59; Nephi: Average Score 3.58; Ephriam: Average Score 3.57; Herriman: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 3.88; Helper: Average Score 3.73; La Verkin: Average Score 3.62; Wellington: Average Score 3.61; Delta: Average Score 3.51; Blanding: Average Score 3.48; Vernal: Average Score 3.27; Price: Average Score 3.17, Moab: Average Score: 3.13; East Carbon: Average Score 2.98. unity wellbeing scores from participating Utah Cities (2021)

Wellbeing Domains in Wellington

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing well in each area. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Wellington were Connection to Nature, Safety and Security, and Mental Health. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Living Standards.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Wellington. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Connection with Nature - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health- 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 80% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 20% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Wellington. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 33% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 33% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 52% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 48% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Wellington

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Wellington. Safety and Security, Mental Health and Living Standards were highly important and highly rated. Physical Health fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that they were of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Leisure Time and Environmental Quality approach the red quadrant as their importance was close to the overall average domain importance, but rating fell near the overall average rating.

Scatterplot. Title: Wellington 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, Leisure Time, Local Environmental Quality. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Education, Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding:

  • Social Connections
  • Cultural Opportunities
  • Mental Health

No change was reported by most Wellington respondents for all other domains.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Wellington. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 67% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 30% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 64% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 34% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 51% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 48% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 44% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 40% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 57% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 26% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 72% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 75% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category:  Local Environmental Quality- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 75% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

The following relationships were found in Wellington between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Personal Wellbeing was more likely to decline for those without a college degree.

  • Cultural opportunities were less likely to decline for those with higher incomes.

  • Education was less likely to decline for those with higher incomes.

  • Physical health was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints than those from other religions.

  • Safety and security were more likely to decline for those age 60+ than those age 18-39.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The number of survey responses for Wellington are insufficient for multivariate analysis of the influence of demographic characteristics on wellbeing. It does appear from other cities that factors such as age, gender, religion and income are significantly related to wellbeing. If we are able to gather more responses in the future, we will be able to asses these relationships.


Community Action & Connections in Wellington
Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Wellington. Both questions were scored on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5). When asked about the degree to which people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities in Wellington, the average score was 3.41. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.09.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Wellington. Subtitle: In Wellington, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 18% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 30% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Wellington. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Wellington as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 12% of respondents; 2: 28% of respondents; 3: 19% of respondents; 4: 19% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 21% of respondents

Respondents indicating their religion as Latter-day Saint were more likely to indicate higher perceptions of local action and higher levels of community connection. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Colors indicate strongest relationships (p < .05).

Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Wellington take action?       +

   
Do you feel connected to your community?          


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Wellington. Of the 2 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 11 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 64% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 26 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 69% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 18 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 39% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 61% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. Wellington is in the mid-range on perceived community action and in the top 5 on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.
Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Wellington was 1.76. Contacting a public official about an issue was the most common activity reported by 40% of respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Wellington. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 32% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 25% of respondents indicated yes to civic or charity group activities. 40% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 33% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 30% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 12% of respondents indicated yes to school group activities. 7% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to generally have a positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, Wellington respondents were somewhat more divided.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Blanding Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 27% indicated neither, 71% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 62% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 11% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 53% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry- 11% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 50% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 9% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 45% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Respondents from Wellington were divided on population growth with 47% indicating they felt population growth is just right and 33% indicating it is too slow. On the pace of economic development, the majority indicated it was too slow (66%) and 26% indicated it was just right.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Wellington. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Wellington? Data – 33% of respondents rated too slow; 47% of respondents rated just right; 4% of respondents rated too fast; 16% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Wellington. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Wellington? Data – 66% of respondents rated too slow; 26% of respondents rated just right; 0% of respondents rated too fast; 8% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Wellington compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Respondent’s Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: Population Growth, How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 72% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Ogden – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 52% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 48% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 90% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 84% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 80% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 79% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 70% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 68% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 57% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 55% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 35% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast;City: La Verkin – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 46% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 14% of respondents rated too slow, 29% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 18% of respondents rated too slow, 17% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 15% of respondents rated too slow, 11% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 32% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 35% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Economic Growth, How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 19% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 28% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 22% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 41% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 39% of respondents rated too slow, 13% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 73% of respondents rated too fast; City: La Verkin – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 64% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 57% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 51% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 75% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 79% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 66% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in Wellington

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Wellington. Opportunities for Youth, Substance Abuse, and Employment Opportunities were the top four concerns with 81% to 91% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Logan. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Wellington, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Opportunities for Youth- 9% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 91% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.


Other concerns were raised by 10 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Cost of water (2)

Law enforcement (2)

Activities for youth (1)

Biden’s new government is taking everything away from small cities like ours (1)

COVID (1)

Traffic (1)

New business development (1)

Wellington needs more (1)

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Wellington with one question on what they value most about their city and another for any additional comments on wellbeing. A summary of values is below. Analysis is ongoing regarding all additional comments and a summary will be added to the report later in 2021.

Key Themes for “Please tell us what you value most about living in Wellington”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Logan. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data – Category: Social Climate- 43 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Connected, Small Town Feel, Friendly, Family-Friendly; Category: City Character- 11 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include quiet and peaceful, good quality of life; Category: Safety- 11 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include abundant good law enforcement, feels safe; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 14 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include well-governed, farmland/open space, nature, good schools, good air quality, other.

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

On This Page

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

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