Carbon County Wellbeing Survey Report

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing Survey project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents, and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning processes. Questions include rating and importance of ten different domains or categories of wellbeing, participation in recreation and nature-related activities, perspectives on local population growth and economic development, the influence of landscape features on wellbeing, concerns for the future, and an array of demographic characteristic questions. Some cities added additional questions to their survey, particularly regarding housing and city amenities.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2022 survey from three cities in Carbon County: East Carbon, Helper, and Price. Please see the individual city reports on the Utah Wellbeing Project website for more details.

How was the survey conducted?

In early 2022, cities in Carbon County advertised the survey via social media, email lists, newsletters, and other local mechanisms. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

Who Responded?

  • 438 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort from Carbon County.
  • East Carbon had 131 responses, Helper had 46 responses, and Price had 261 responses.

Additional Information

Reports summarizing city-specific results from the survey may be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website. This information may help cities refine their messaging with residents on key issues, affirm existing plans, support future planning, and have practical implications for spending and providing services.

This project benefits from the partnership with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, which is helping cities envision ways to use the findings from the wellbeing survey to inform their general planning processes. These cities all fall in the Traditional Rural or Rural Hub/Resort Communities cluster of cities according to the Utah League of Cities and Towns.

Key Findings in Carbon County


Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing were above average in Helper, and below average in Price and East Carbon compared to other study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Categories:

  • Connection with Nature

Most Important Wellbeing Categories:

  • Safety and Security
  • Mental Health
  • Living Standards

Red Zone Wellbeing Categories:
(High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • East Carbon - Physical Health, Local Environmental Quality, and Safety and Security
  • Helper - Physical and Mental Health
  • Price - Living Standards and Leisure Time

Top concerns for the future of Carbon County cities:

  • Opportunities for Youth
  • Substance Abuse
  • Water Supply

What do people value most about their Carbon County city?
Positive social climate and small-town feel, peace and quiet, and nature and natural beauty. 

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Carbon County Study Cities

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing were above average in Helper, and below average in Price and East Carbon compared to other study cities.

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

The highest rated wellbeing domains for the three Carbon County study cities were:

  • Connection with Nature (all 3 cities)
  • Mental Health (East Carbon only)
  • Leisure Time (East Carbon only)
  • Living Standards (East Carbon and Helper)
  • Safety and Security (Helper and Price)
  • Local Environmental Quality (Helper and Price)

The most important wellbeing domains for the three Carbon County study cities were:

  • Safety and Security (all 3 cities)
  • Mental Health (all 3 cities)
  • Living Standards (all 3 cities)

The Red Zone Domains (higher importance, lower quality) for the three Carbon County study cities were:

  • East Carbon – Physical Health, Local Environmental Quality, and Safety and Security
  • Helper – Physical and Mental Health
  • Price – Living Standards and Leisure Time

Community Connectedness and Action

Helper had the highest score for both Community Connection and Perceived Community Action among all 2022 study cities and scored considerably higher than both East Carbon and Price.

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.

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.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents in each Carbon County city 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 (87%) was the most common activity for all Carbon County respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (69%) and gardening (67%). 

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Carbon County. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 69% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 87% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 56% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 66% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 67% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 34% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 51% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 56% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

Landscapes and Wellbeing in Carbon County Study Cities

The survey asked respondents to rate the influence of various landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes such as mountains, rivers, trails, city parks, lakes and farmland were all found to have highly positive impacts on wellbeing. Developed landscapes were mixed in their influence on wellbeing.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Carbon County Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 6% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 72% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 63% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 18% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 14% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 47% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 19% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 13% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Respondents in Carbon County study cities had different perceptions of the Rate of Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development. On the Rate of Population Growth, respondents were evenly distributed in Price, and the majority felt it was just right in Helper and East Carbon. On the Pace of Economic Development, the majority felt it was just right in Helper, and felt it was too slow in Price and East Carbon.

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 for the Future of Carbon County Study Cities

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

Moderate to Major Concerns by Over Two-Thirds of Respondents

  • East Carbon
    • Water Supply 91%
    • Opportunities for Youth 86%
    • Substance Abuse 85%
    • Suicide 77%
    • Employment Opportunities 71%
    • Recreation Opportunities 71%
    • Public Safety 71%
  • Helper
    • Water Supply 86%
    • Affordable Housing 79%
    • Opportunities for Youth 74%
    • Substance Abuse 71%
    • Employment Opportunities 71%
    • Access to Public Land 69%
    • Suicide 68%
  • Price
    • Opportunities for Youth 89%
    • Water Supply 86%
    • Substance Abuse 83%
    • Affordable Housing 82%
    • Suicide 79%
    • Employment Opportunities 79%
    • Roads & Transportation 76%
    • Shopping Opportunities 67%
    • Access to Quality Food 67%

Other concerns were raised by respondents who filled in the “other” category. The most frequently mentioned topics specific to each city included:

  • Drugs and police/government in East Carbon
  • Only two respondents provided information in Helper – please see individual report
  • Roads need to be fixed and government in Price

Open Comments Relating to Value

Respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about their cities at the end of each survey. All responses have been read, compiled, and then shared with city leaders. The main themes in Carbon County in response to this question were valuing the small town feel and overall social climate. Many people also valued the peace and quiet in their cities as well as the nature and natural beauty. 

On This Page