Cottonwood Heights 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

Cottonwood Heights 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 Cottonwood Heights 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 April of 2022, Cottonwood Heights City advertised the survey via email lists, electronic newsletters, print newsletters, and social media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 227 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 90.4% complete responses.
  • The adult population of Cottonwood Heights was estimated at 26,493, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 227 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.86% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.46%.

Key Findings

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

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Connection with Nature

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Local Environmental Quality

Perception that residents take action and feelings of community connection in Cottonwood Heights were lower than in most other study communities.

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

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast, but they were more evenly distributed on the Pace of Economic Development between just right and too fast. 

Top concerns for the future of Cottonwood Heights were:

  • Air Quality (93% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Climate Change (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (80% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Cottonwood Heights? 
Great location, positive social climate, access to nature and surrounding natural beauty, feelings of safety, and a peaceful and quiet place to live. 

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 Cottonwood Heights, key wellbeing issues include: Air Quality, Water Supply, and Affordable Housing. 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 Cottonwood Heights 96.9%
Part Time Residents of Cottonwood Heights 3.1%
Length of Residency — Range 0.7 - 52 years
Length of Residency — Average 16.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 14 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 21.6%

Table 1.2

Zipcodes Percent of Respondents
84121 93.9%
84047 1.8%
84093 4.4%

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 Cottonwood Heights. People age 40-49, who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, own their home, are employed, and have children under 18 in the household were particularly overrepresented. People 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 Cottonwood Heights


Demographic Characteristics		 Cottonwood Heights Wellbeing Survey
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2022
227 Respondents 
Age 18-29 3.9% 19.1%
Age 30-39 18.9% 18.8%
Age 40-49 28.6% 16.8%
Age 50-59 21.8% 16.1%
Age 60-69 18.9% 14.4%
Age 70 or over 7.8% 14.8%
Adult Female 68.0% 51.4%
Adult Male 29.1% 48.6%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 2.9% NA
No college degree 28.4% 48.4%
College degree (4-year) 71.6% 51.6%
Median household income NA $95,427
Income under $25,000 2.1% 8.9%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 5.2% 13.4%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 8.3% 17.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 16.7% 12.0%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 31.8% 21.3%
Income $150,000 or over 35.9% 26.9%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 22.8% NA
Other religion 27.2% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 50.0% NA
Hispanic/Latino 3.4% 5.0%
White 92.0% 92.2%
Nonwhite 8.0% 7.8%
Married 76.7% 56.6%
Children under 18 in household 42.9% 30.6%
Employed 78.2% 68.8%
Out of work and looking for work 0.5% 2.0%
Other 21.1% 29.1%
Own home/Owner occupied 87.3% 71.8%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 12.7% 28.2%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Cottonwood Heights was 4.19 with 84% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights was 3.72 with 62% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 35% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing were higher for those in zipcodes 84047 and 84093, but this difference was not statistically significant and only 6% of respondents were from 84047 and 84093. 

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Cottonwood Heights 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, Cottonwood Heights fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Cottonwood Heights was statistically significantly higher than Tooele, Logan, and Midvale in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, Cottonwood Heights was significantly higher than Tooele, Midvale, and Logan, but significantly lower than South Jordan and Draper. 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 Cottonwood Heights

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 four highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Cottonwood Heights were Living Standards (84%), Physical Health (82%), Mental Health (80%), and Connection with Nature (76%). The five most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Physical Health (95%), Safety and Security (93%), Living Standards (91%), and Local Environmental Quality (91%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 55% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 45% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 16% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 84% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 68% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 32% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 32% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 38% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 62% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Cottonwood Heights

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Cottonwood Heights. Living Standards, Physical Health, Mental Health, and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Local Environmental Quality fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings, with Safety and Security approaching this zone. 

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

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 Cottonwood Heights 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 Cottonwood Heights

  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            
Wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights            
Connection with Nature       +
vs Other		    
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 18-39		          
Education     + +
vs A/A/NP		    
Leisure Time +
vs 18-39		          
Living Standards         +
vs Under $75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health +
       +
vs Under $75,000		  
Physical Health              
Safety & Security            
Social Connections       +
vs A/A/NP 		 +
vs Under $75,000 and $100,000- $149,999		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature       -
vs A/A/NP 		    
Cultural Opportunities            
Education     + +
vs A/A/NP 		    
Leisure Time       -

 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality       -
vs A/A/NP 		    
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health            
Safety and Security         +
vs Under $75,000		  
Social Connections     -       
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Cottonwood Heights

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Cottonwood Heights. 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 Cottonwood Heights, the average score was 3.00. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.86.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: In Cottonwood Heights, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 27% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Cottonwood Heights as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 22% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference and Other Religion, as well as higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community action and higher perceptions of local action than those age 18-39. Those in the highest income category ($150,000+) reported higher levels of community connection than those with household incomes under $75,000. 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 Cottonwood Heights take action? +
vs 18-39		     +
vs A/A/NP		    
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 18-39

     +
 +
vs Under $75,000		  

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Cottonwood Heights. 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 29 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 93% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 7% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 106 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 73% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 73 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 55% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% 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. Cottonwood Heights was in the lower half on perceived community action and 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 last 12 months. Enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood (87%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by gardening (86%) and recreating in parks in the city (82%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 77% 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. 33% 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. 86% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 49% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 64% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 63% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Cottonwood Heights respondents, none of the above recreation activities were significantly related to overall personal wellbeing or community wellbeing. 

Participating in city recreation programs was positively and significantly related to community connection. 

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 city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided. There was a particularly strong negative perception of extractive industry among Cottonwood Heights respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Cottonwood Heights 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,1% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 74% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 60% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 24% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 47% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 73% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 60% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Cottonwood Heights indicated that they felt population growth was too fast (60%). On the pace of economic development, 40% indicated it was too fast, 39% just right, and 11% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Cottonwood Heights? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 29% of respondents rated just right; 60% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Cottonwood Heights? Data – 11% of respondents rated too slow; 39% of respondents rated just right; 40% of respondents rated too fast; 10% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Cottonwood Heights 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 Cottonwood Heights

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

Title: Concerns in Cottonwood Heights. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Cottonwood Heights, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 7% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 93% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 47 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Police (9) Noise pollution and light pollution
City government and budget (6) Prompt snow removal from roads
Walkability and sidewalks (5) Corruption
Traffic and parking (4) Public transportation
High density housing, overdevelopment (3) Gravel pit
Internet (2) Lack of green space
Politics (2) Inflation
Gondola (2) LGBTQ rights
Sustainable landscaping Laws against short term rentals

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Cottonwood Heights and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Cottonwood Heights. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, many people in Cottonwood Heights valued their location, specifically in relation to their proximity to canyons, nature, and recreation. The social climate was also valued by residents of Cottonwood Heights, this includes community and neighbors. Safety as well as peace and quiet were also valued in Cottonwood Heights. The additional comments section included comments about housing in Cottonwood Heights, mainly in concern to high density and multi-family housing. Transportation comments were also made, mainly concerned about the walkability in the community. Residents of Cottonwood Heights also made comments about safety, many in relation to the Cottonwood Heights police. 

On This Page