Draper 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

Draper 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 Draper 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, Draper City advertised the survey via the city newsletter, the city website, email and text notices, and social media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 888 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 86.6% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Draper survey had 375 responses and the 2020 Draper survey had 355 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Draper was estimated at 33,171, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 888 survey responses in 2022 represent 2.7% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 3.24%.

Key Findings

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

Average Overall Personal and Community Wellbeing decreased in Draper between 2020 and 2021, but increased between 2021 and 2022.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Wellbeing varied within Draper 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 many wellbeing domains as higher than those from other religions or who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. 

COVID-19 had the greatest impact on Social Connections and Anxiety. 

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were higher in Draper than in many other study communities (and Latter-day Saints were higher than those from other religion categories or who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference).

Manufacturing and Extractive Industry had negative influences on wellbeing, though natural landscapes were highly positive.

Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development in Draper were too fast according to most respondents.

Top concerns for the future of Draper were:

  • Air Quality (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (85% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (73% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Draper? 
Location, convenience to major roads, social climate, surrounding nature, and open space. 

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 Draper City, key wellbeing issues include: Air Quality, Water Supply, and Roads and Transportation. 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 Draper 98.9%
Part Time Residents of Draper 1.1%
Length of Residency — Range 0.25- 68 years
Length of Residency — Average 13 years
Length of Residency — Median 12 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 25.7%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84020 98.9%
84092 0.2%
84065 0.1%
Other 0.8%

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 Draper. People who are female, age 40-49, have at least a 4-year college degree, married, own their home, have children under 18 in the household, and those with incomes $150,000 and over 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 Draper


Demographic Characteristics		 Draper Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
355
Respondents 		 Online 2021
375 Respondents 		 Online 2022
888 Respondents 
Age 18-29 4.1% 2.1% 2.5% 21.2%
Age 30-39 19.2% 19.4% 15.1% 19.8%
Age 40-49 29.6% 30.3% 35.5% 25.2%
Age 50-59 23.9% 20.9% 26.4% 17.0%
Age 60-69 13.8% 17.0% 12.6% 9.3%
Age 70 or over 9.4% 10.3% 7.9% 7.7%
Adult Female 62.3% 52.3% 61.8% 47.9%
Adult Male 37.7% 47.7% 37.6% 52.1%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 0.5% NA
No college degree 27.0% 21.4% 26.2% 76.6%
College degree (4-year) 73.0% 78.6% 73.8% 23.4%
Median household income NA NA NA $112,541
Income under $25,000 1.0% 0.3% 1.1% 6.6%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 4.7% 3.2% 3.3% 10.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 8.0% 9.6% 6.4% 15.0%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 13.0% 10.8% 7.6% 10.0%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 27.1% 23.2% 24.9% 20.2%
Income $150,000 or over 47.2% 52.9% 56.8% 38.0%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 47.6% 51.2% 52.4% NA
Other religion 21.7% 21.9% 22.2% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 30.7% 26.9% 25.4% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 3.7% 4.0% 7.3%
White 91.6% 95.9% 93.8% 87.6%
Nonwhite 8.4% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 5.1% 6.2% 12.4%
Married 83.5% 84.3% 85.0% 59.5%
Children under 18 in household 48.9% 49.1% 57.0% 44.3%
Employed 73.4% 70.2% 68.2% 65.9%
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.8%
Other 26.0% 29.8% 31.3% 32.3%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 97.9% 94.4% 77.8%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 2.1% 5.6% 22.2%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Draper

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Draper. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Draper was 4.27 with 88% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Draper was 4.03 with 78% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Draper. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 10% of respondents; 4: 47% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 41% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Draper. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Draper? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Draper over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score remained nearly the same. In terms of community wellbeing, the average score declined in Draper between 2020 and 2021, but increased 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 Draper. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.24, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.97, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.22, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.89, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.27, 2022 community wellbeing: 4.03

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Draper 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, Draper scored highest in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Draper was statistically significantly higher than Tooele, Logan, Midvale, and West Jordan in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, Draper was significantly higher than all other cities in the cluster except Millcreek, Sandy, Bountiful, and South Jordan. 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 Draper

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 Draper were Living Standards (91%), followed by Safety and Security (87%), Physical Health (80%), and Education (80%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (99%), Safety and Security (99%), Physical Health (97%), and Living Standards (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Draper. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 60% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 91% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Draper. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 1% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 99% 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 - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% 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 - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% 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 - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 47% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 53% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Draper

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

Scatterplot. Title: Draper Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Education. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and local environmental quality. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: none.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Draper

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Draper residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time. Rebounds in education, mental health, physical health, leisure time, social connections, and cultural opportunities were notable. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Draper, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 4.3, 2021- 4.3, 2022- 4.35; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 4.1, 2021- 4.0, 2022- 4.2; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 4.0, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 3.95, Category: Education- 2020- 4.0, 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.1; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.95, 2021- 3.85, 2022 4.05; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.95, 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.05; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.3, 2021- 3.55, 2022- 3.6; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.0, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.4; 2022- 3.75, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 3.25, 2021- 2.9, 2022- 3.3.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts in Draper 

Additional questions were asked regarding impacts from COVID-19. The most common impacts indicated by respondents include Loss of Social Connections (49%), Feelings of Anxiety (47%), and Educational Challenges (39%).


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID Pandemic’s Effects in Draper. Subtitle: Please indicate, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not at all and 5 being affected a great deal), the extent to which the COVID Pandemic has affected your household in the following ways. Data: feelings of anxiety 53% rated a 1 or 2 and 47% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Loss of social connection 51% rated a 1 or 2 and 49% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Financial impacts 72% rated a 1 or 2 and 28% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Educational challenges 61% rated a 1 or 2 and 39% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Health impacts 72% rated a 1 or 2 and 28% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Job loss 85% rated a 1 or 2 and 15% rated a 3, 4, or 5.

When asked to describe other ways they had been affected by the COVID Pandemic, Draper respondents most frequently mentioned the following themes:

  • Lack of social connections and increased isolation or divisiveness in the community
  • Poor government response
  • Diminished quality of life
  • Poor educational outcomes for youth
  • Poor employment opportunities and loss of employment

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 Draper 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 Draper

  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 Under $75,000 - $99,999		  
Wellbeing in Draper       +

 +
vs Under $75,000 - $99,999		 +
Connection with Nature         +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 18-39		     +

    
Education     + +
    
Leisure Time +
     +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  
Living Standards       +

 +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Local Environmental Quality       +

    
Mental Health +
     +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Physical Health         +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Safety & Security -
     +
vs Other 		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Social Connections       +
    
  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		 +
vs $100,000- $149,999		 -
Leisure Time       -
vs A/A/NP		    
Living Standards   +        
Local Environmental Quality   + + -
vs A/A/NP		    
Mental Health    +
 + +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $100,000- $149,999		  
Physical Health +
     +
 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Safety and Security   +   +
vs A/A/NP		    
Social Connections   +
   +
vs A/A/NP		     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Draper

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Draper. 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 Draper, the average score was 3.20. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.23.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Draper. Subtitle: In Draper, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 5% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Draper. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Draper as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 6% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 40% of respondents; 4: 31% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community action and higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference or Other Religion. Respondents who have been residents of Draper 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection than those who have resided in Draper for over 5 years. 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 Draper take action?       +

    
Do you feel connected to your community?

    +
   -

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Draper. Of the 15 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 80% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 77 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 90% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 10% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 381 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 340 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 47% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% 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. Draper was in the mid-range on perceived community action and in 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 (85%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (81%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Draper. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 81% 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. 40% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 85% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 72% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 41% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 54% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 58% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Draper respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters and recreating in city parks were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Participating in city recreation programs and recreating in city parks were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

All of the above recreation activities except for walking a pet and gardening were positively and significantly related to community connectedness. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, rivers and streams, city parks, and trails 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 Draper respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Draper 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, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 69% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 72% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 37% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 44% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 19% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 66% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 51% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Draper survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (77%). On the pace of economic development, 56% indicated it was too fast, 32% just right, and 3% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Draper. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Draper? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 16% of respondents rated just right; 77% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Draper. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Draper? Data – 3% of respondents rated too slow; 32% of respondents rated just right; 56% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show changes in perceptions of the current rate of population growth and pace of economic development between 2020 and 2022. Draper's respondent perspectives did not change very substantially between 2021 and 2022. The most notable difference was a slight increase in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast (72% to 77%), with a near mirror-image decline in those who felt that population growth is just right (22% to 16%) between 2021 and 2022. There was also a general increase in the number of respondents indicating the pace of economic development was too fast (and a general decline in those saying it is just right). 

Type: Line Title: Draper Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 1% rated too slow, 19% rated just right, 72% rated too fast 2021: 0% rated too slow, 22% rated just right, 72% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 16% rated just right, 77% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Draper Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 4% rated too slow, 44% rated just right, 44% rated too fast 2021: 3% rated too slow, 34% rated just right, 59% rated too fast 2022: 3% rated too slow, 32% rated just right, 56% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Draper 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 Draper

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Draper. Air Quality, Water Supply, and Roads and Transportation were the top three concerns with over 75% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Draper. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Draper, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 185 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 (35) Sustainability (3) Businesses closing
Traffic and infrastructure (26) Litter and cleanliness (3) Access to technology services
Overcrowding, overpopulation (12) Wildlife (2) Vanity
Open space, green space, parks (12) Flight park (2) Gerrymandering
Government (10) Noise ordinance (2) Volunteer opportunities
Housing options, housing prices, house building (9) Road safety (2) Support for the elderly
Alternative transportation (7) Community (2) Earthquake
Taxes (5) Fluoride in water should be taken out (2) Geneva
Politics (4) Diversity (2) Historic preservation
Religion (4) Inequality (2) Wildfires
Homeless population (4) Restaurants (2) Land use rights
Education (3) Trees  Landfill waste
Unleashed dogs (3) Quality of life   
Trails (3) APA  

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Draper and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Draper. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Draper highly valued the location of Draper, commenting on the convenience and access to major roads. The social climate was also valued in Draper, which included comments about the community in Draper. Nature and beauty as well as open space were also commented as being of value. The additional comments section included comments about growth and development, many concerned about too much growth. Additional comments were made about housing, many comments about high density housing. Draper residents also commented about transportation, many worried about traffic as well as the safety of pedestrians and bikes. 

On This Page