Bountiful Wellbeing Survey Findings 2022

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

Bountiful City is one of 33 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2022. 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.

We are grateful to all participants who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. Additionally, we are grateful to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and USU Extension for their financial support.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2022 Bountiful survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in March of 2022, Bountiful City advertised the survey via electronic newsletters, print newsletters, and social media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 270 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 87.4% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Bountiful survey had 213 responses and the 2020 Bountiful survey had 375 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Bountiful was estimated at 31,052, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 270 survey responses in 2022 represent .87% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.94%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Bountiful were above average among the 33 study cities.

Average Overall Personal Wellbeing remained nearly the same in Bountiful between the three study years, while average Overall Community Wellbeing declined between 2021 and 2022. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards
  • Education

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Wellbeing varied within Bountiful by demographic characteristics. Religion was a particularly important factor in the rating of wellbeing overall and for domains, with those indicating their religion as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rating wellbeing and most wellbeing domains as higher than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference.

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in the last year for 28% of respondents, while overall community wellbeing declined for 31% of respondents. 

Perceptions that residents take action and levels of community connection in Bountiful were higher than in many other study communities. Latter-day Saints were higher on perceptions of action and their community connection than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference.

Manufacturing and Extractive Industry had negative influences on wellbeing, while natural landscapes like mountains, rivers, and trails were highly positive.

Over half of the respondents felt Population Growth was too fast. In terms of the Pace of Economic Development, respondents were more evenly distributed between indicating it was just right and too fast. 

Top concerns for the future of Bountiful were:

  • Water Supply (90% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (85% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Climate Change (66% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (64% Moderate or Major Concern)

The availability of preferred type and price of housing were the greatest obstacles to those seeking new housing. These obstacles were highlighted by more people in 2022 than in 2021. 

What do people value most about Bountiful? 
The location of Bountiful and proximity to Salt Lake City, the social climate, safety, and access to nature. 

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

In addition to providing partner cities with the opportunity to take part in surveys, the Utah Wellbeing Project has worked to provide curated resources for community leaders and citizens that aim to improve specific aspects of wellbeing. These Wellbeing Resources can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website, along with other useful tools and information.

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Bountiful City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Mental Health, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Air Quality. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1.1

Full Time Residents of Bountiful 98.9%
Part Time Residents of Bountiful 1.1%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 71 years
Length of Residency — Average 22.1 years
Length of Residency — Median 18 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 24.8%
 

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Bountiful. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, have children under 18 in the household, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. Those age 18-29 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below.

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Bountiful


Demographic Characteristics		 Bountiful Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
375
Respondents

 Online 2021
213 Respondents

 Online 2022 270
Respondents
Age 18-29 11.2% 13.2% 6.3% 23.2%
Age 30-39 25.5% 25.8% 24.6% 21.7%
Age 40-49 20.8% 26.0% 24.6% 14.6%
Age 50-59 16.0% 15.1% 15.4% 13.6%
Age 60-69 13.4% 8.2% 14.6% 12.0%
Age 70 or over 12.1% 1.4% 14.6% 14.9%
Adult Female 66.1% 57.1% 68.3% 50.6%
Adult Male 33.9% 42.9% 31.3% 49.4%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 0.4% NA
No college degree 40.1% 35.3% 37.7% 52.4%
College degree (4-year) 59.9% 64.7% 62.3% 47.6%
Median household income NA NA NA $83,660
Income under $25,000 5.2% 4.3% 3.0% 7.8%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 11.5% 7.6% 9.9% 17.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 13.8% 19.8% 13.8% 19.8%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 21.6% 17.6% 22.8% 14.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 24.9% 28.6% 24.6% 22.5%
Income $150,000 or over 23.0% 21.9% 25.9% 18.3%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 58.2% 66.5% 62.8% NA
Other religion 10.9% 11.2% 12.6% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 30.9% 21.8% 24.7% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 3.7% 4.2% 6.6%
White 94.5% 92.9% 95.7% 92.6%
Nonwhite 5.5% (includes
Hispanic and Latino)		 7.1% 4.3% 7.4%
Married 77.9% 81.9% 82.4% 60.8%
Children under 18 in household 47.1% 57.7% 48.8% 37.3%
Employed 66.8% 67.0% 56.5% 64.9%
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 1.6% 2.1% 1.6%
Other 32.7% 31.4% 41.4% 33.6%
Own home/Owner occupied 83.3% 83.6% 89.5% 75.5%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 16.7% 16.4% 10.5% 24.5%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Bountiful

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Bountiful. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Bountiful was 4.09 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Bountiful was 3.84 with 68% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 32% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Bountiful? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 45% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Bountiful over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score has stayed nearly the same, but the community wellbeing score declined between 2021 and 2022. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Bountiful. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.11, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.97, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.06, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.96, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.09, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.84

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 Pandemic has dominated the last couple of years. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or community wellbeing changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 28% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 34% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing had improved in that time. For community wellbeing, 31% of respondents indicated it had declined in the last year and 17% indicated it had improved. 

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Bountiful. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 3%; Declined slightly: 25%; No change: 38%; Improved slightly: 29%; Improved Substantially: 5%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Bountiful. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Bountiful changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 4%; Declined slightly: 27%; No change: 52%; Improved slightly: 16%; Improved Substantially: 1%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Bountiful as a Mid-Sized City (and we have combined these with Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the more urban city cluster, Bountiful fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Bountiful was statistically significantly higher than Tooele in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, Bountiful was significantly higher than Tooele, Midvale, Logan, and West Jordan, but not significantly different from the other cities in the cluster. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.27; Millcreek: Average Score 4.24; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 4.19; Layton: Average Score 4.16; Bountiful: Average Score 4.09; Sandy: Average Score 4.07; South Jordan: Average Score 4.06; West Jordan: Average Score 4.03; Midvale: Average Score 3.94; Logan: Average Score 3.89; Tooele: Average Score 3.76. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Vineyard: Average Score 4.31; Highland: Average Score 4.28; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.25; Nibley: Average Score 4.20; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.15; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Lehi: Average Score 4.10; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.02; Santaquin: Average Score 3.98; Herriman: Average Score 3.87. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Beaver: Average Score 4.18; Helper: Average Score 4.15; Nephi: Average Score 4.11; Tremonton: Average Score 4.10; Park City: Average Score 4.04; Bluff: Average Score 3.96; Ephraim: Average Score 3.89; Delta: Average Score 3.88; Blanding: Average Score: 3.85; Price: Average Score 3.83; East Carbon: Average Score: 3.73; Moab: Average Score: 3.50. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.03; South Jordan: Average Score 4.02; Bountiful: Average Score 3.84; Sandy: Average Score 3.79; Millcreek: Average Score 3.79; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 3.72; Layton: Average Score 3.71; West Jordan: Average Score 3.55; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Midvale: Average Score 3.24; Tooele: Average Score 3.15. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Highland: Average Score 4.15; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.05; North Logan: Average Score 3.99; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.98; Nibley: Average Score 3.87; Vineyard: Average Score 3.84; Santaquin: Average Score 3.72; Lehi: Average Score 3.61; Herriman: Average Score 3.49; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Helper: Average Score 4.09; Bluff: Average Score 3.84; Beaver: Average Score 3.82; Ephraim: Average Score 3.75; Nephi: Average Score 3.62; Park City: Average Score 3.50; Delta: Average Score 3.44; Blanding: Average Score 3.44; Tremonton: Average Score: 3.32; Price: Average Score 3.15; East Carbon: Average Score: 2.98; Moab: Average Score: 2.84. 

Wellbeing Domains in Bountiful

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 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 Bountiful were Safety and Security (84%), Living Standards (83%), and Education (71%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (99%), Safety and Security (95%), Living Standards (93%), and Physical Health (92%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 16% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 84% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 17% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 83% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 67% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 33% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Bountiful. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 1% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 99% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 35% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 21% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 79% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 51% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 49% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Bountiful

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Bountiful. Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Physical Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No domains fell in the “red zone” of higher importance but lower ratings, however, Local Environmental Quality, Mental Health, and Physical Health approached this zone. 

graph

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Bountiful

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Bountiful residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time. A rebound can be seen in Leisure Time, Social Connections, and Cultural Opportunities as time passes from the intensity of the COVID-19 Pandemic. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Blanding, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 4.1, 2021- 4.1, 2022- 4.1; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 4.2, 2021- 4.15, 2022- 4.1; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.75, 2022- 3.65, Category: Education- 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.75, 2022- 3.8; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.6, 2022 3.7; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.7; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.2, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.3; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.7, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.2; 2022- 3.5, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 3.0, 2021- 2.65, 2022- 3.0.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Connection with Nature for 26% of respondents and in Leisure Time for 21% of respondent.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's affect on wellbeing domains in Bountiful. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 70% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 29% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 53% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 43% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 57% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 42% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 36% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 52% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 21% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 65% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 69% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 15% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 59% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 26% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 17% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 72% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 12% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 70% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables for age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships among Bountiful respondents as shown in the table below based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data. The +/- sign indicates whether the wellbeing score in the specific demographic group was significantly higher or lower than the reference group in each demographic variable (p<.05). 

Table 3
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Bountiful

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +
vs 40-59		     +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000 - $99,999		  
Wellbeing in Bountiful       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Connection with Nature +
       +
vs Under $75,000 - $99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities +
     +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $100,000 - $149,999		  
Education       +
vs A/A/NP		 +  
Leisure Time +     +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000 - $99,999		 +
Living Standards +     +
vs A/A/NP		 +

 +
Local Environmental Quality    -   +
vs A/A/NP		    
Mental Health +
       +
vs Under $75,000 - $99,999		  
Physical Health +
vs 40-59		         +
vs Under $75,000 - $99,999		  
Safety & Security       +
vs A/A/NP		 +

 +
Social Connections       +
vs A/A/NP		 +

  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature     +      
Cultural Opportunities   +        
Education + + +      
Leisure Time +
vs 18-39		          
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health +          
Safety and Security   +        
Social Connections   +   +
vs A/A/NP		     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Bountiful

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Bountiful. 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 Bountiful, the average score was 3.38. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.17.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Bountiful. Subtitle: In Bountiful, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 29% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 18% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Bountiful. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Bountiful as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 27% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents with higher incomes reported higher levels of community connection than respondents with household incomes between $100,000 and $149,999. Respondents age 60+ reported higher perceptions of local action than those age 18-59. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Bountiful take action? +
     +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $100,000 - $149,999		  
Do you feel connected to your community?

    +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $100,000 - $149,999 		  

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Bountiful. Of the 8 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 40 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 85% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 121 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 64% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 78 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 42% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% 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. Bountiful was in the mid-range on perceived community action and the upper half on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 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: Hyde Park 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: Highland 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: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 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: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% 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: South Jordan 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: Vineyard 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: Millcreek 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: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 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: Santaquin 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: Moab 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: Tremonton 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: Layton 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 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: Sandy 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: Tooele 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: Logan 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: Lehi 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: Herriman 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: Cottonwood Heights 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: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; 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; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% 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 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 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: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 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: 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: Hyde Park- 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: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 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: South Jordan- 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- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 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: Nibley- 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: Santaquin- 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: Moab- 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: Layton- 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: East Carbon- 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: Sandy- 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: Tremonton- 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: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 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: Lehi- 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: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (88%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by recreating in parks in the city (82%) and gardening (75%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Bountiful. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 74% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 88% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 32% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 82% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 75% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 41% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 58% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 48% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Bountiful respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation, participating in city recreation programs, walking a pet in the city, and gardening were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing.

Recreating in parks and walking a pet in the city were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing and community connectedness. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Manufacturing and extractive industry were viewed as negative influences on wellbeing to a higher number of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Bountiful Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively,2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 63% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 67% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 42% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 20% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 45% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 63% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 55% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Bountiful survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (57%). On the pace of economic development, 36% indicated it was just right, 31% too fast, and 15% too slow.

graphType: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Bountiful? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 28% of respondents rated just right; 57% of respondents rated too fast; 12% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Bountiful. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Bountiful? Data – 15% of respondents rated too slow; 36% of respondents rated just right; 31% of respondents rated too fast; 18% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Bountiful have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast, with a mirror-image decline in those who felt that population growth is just right. On the current pace of economic development, the ratio of those indicating it's too slow to those indicating it's too fast flipped between 2020 and 2022, along with a slight decline in those indicating the pace of economic development is just right (though the just right perspective had a slightly larger proportion of responses). 

Type: Line Title: Bountiful Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 46% rated too fast, 38% rated just right, 3% rated too slow 2021: 36% rated just right, 3% rated too slow, 48% rated too fast 2022: 28% rated just right, 2% rated too slow, 57% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Bountiful Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 43% rated just right, 35% rated too slow, 14% rated too fast 2021: 20% rated too slow, 43% rated just right, 19% rated too fast 2022: 15% rated too slow, 36% rated just right, 31% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Bountiful compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development in 2022. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Graph 23: Population Growth Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: 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: Logan – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Draper – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 56% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 51% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek - 1% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 66% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast;City: Highland – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 82% of respondents rated too fast;City: Tremonton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 60% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 40% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast.  Graph 24: Economic Development Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: 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, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 41% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Jordan – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 34% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 22% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 49% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: Highland – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 29% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 77% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tremonton – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 45% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 31% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 30% of respondents rated too slow, 18% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 61% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 67% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in Bountiful

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Bountiful. Water Supply, Air Quality, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with over 80% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Bountiful. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Bountiful, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 10% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 90% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 48 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
High density housing, overdevelopment (10) Youth mental health (2)
Access to quality Internet (7) City image and cleanliness (2)
Utilities infrastructure, affordable utilities (3) Trails
Emergency preparedness (2) Police funding
Education (2) Religion
Nightlife activities (2) Wildlife below I-15
Local government (2) Guns
Water quality (2) Traffic
Inequality (2) Taxes
Political divide (2) Panhandling

Housing in Bountiful

Bountiful City chose to add additional questions to the survey related to housing. Below are the findings related to these questions. 

Of the survey respondents,

  • 91% live in a single-family house (2.5% townhome, 4% apartment, 3% other)
  • 90% own their home (this is up from 84% in 2021)
  • 19% spend more than one-third of their after-tax income on rent or mortgage (this is up from 12% in 2021)
    • 23% spend about a third on housing
    • 59% spend less than a third on housing
  • 27.5% spend about a third of their after-tax income on rent or mortgage
  • 16% are very likely to change housing arrangements in next 5 years (15% were somewhat likely, 69% said they were not at all likely or not very likely).

For those desiring a housing change,

  • 77% seek to own their next housing in Bountiful and 19% were not sure.
  • 70% would seek single-family housing if they were to look for new housing. This is down from 87% in 2021, but comparable to 72% in 2020.

As the graph below shows, according to survey respondents the greatest obstacles in seeking new housing include the type and price of housing stock. “Not having enough housing stock in my price range in the area” went up to 86% of respondents in 2022 from 61% in 2021 and 52% in 2020. “Not having enough housing stock of my preference type in the area” went up to 78% from 72% in 2021 and 38% in 2020. 

Type: Likert Title: Housing Obstacles in Bountiful Subtitle: Please indicate if any of the following would be a major obstacle, a minor, obstacle, or no obstacle for yo in seeking new housing in Bountiful. Data: In response to not enough housing stock in my price range in the area 14% indicated it as no obstacle and 86% indicated it as a minor or major obstacle. In response to not enough housing stock of my preference type in the area 22% indicated it as no obstacle while 78% indicated it as a minor or major obstacle. In response to not earning enough money 48% indicated it as no obstacle while 52% indicated it as a minor or major obstacle. In response to not knowing how to start the process of buying or renting a new home 85% indicated it as no obstacle while 15% indicated it as a minor or major obstacle. In response to not having established a credit history to qualify for a loan 88% indicated it as no obstacle while 12% indicated it as a minor or major obstacle. In response to not knowing someone to help with the home buying or renting process 90% indicated it as no obstacle while 10% indicated it as a minor obstacle.

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Bountiful and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Bountiful. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, many people in Bountiful valued their location, specifically in relation to their proximity to nature and a small-town community while being close to a bigger city (Salt Lake City). The social climate was also valued by residents of Bountiful, this includes community and neighbors. Safety as well as nature and beauty are also valued. The additional comments section included comments about housing in Bountiful, mainly in concern to high density and multi-family housing. Transportation comments were also made, mainly concerning road conditions and traffic. Respondents also made comments about wanting more diversity in local/commercial businesses. There were also a few negative comments about the social climate (especially for “new-comers” or people who were not in the dominant faith group) and safety.

On This Page