East Carbon 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

East Carbon 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 East Carbon 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, East Carbon City advertised the survey via social media and a monthly newsletter. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 131 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 85.5% complete responses.
  • The 2021 East Carbon survey had 104 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of East Carbon was estimated at 1,221, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 131 survey responses in 2022 represent 10.7% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 8.09%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in East Carbon were below average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing declined between 2021 and 2022, but Overall Community Wellbeing remained the same. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Connection with Nature
  • Mental Health
  • Leisure Time
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Mental Health
  • Living Standards
  • Local Environmental Quality

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Safety and Security
  • Physical Health
  • Local Environmental Quality

Perceptions that residents take action and levels of community connection in East Carbon were lower than in most other study areas.

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

Top concerns for the future of East Carbon were:

  • Water Supply (91% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (85% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Suicide (77% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about East Carbon?
Positive social climate and sense of community, nature and natural beauty, recreation, and peace and quiet.

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 East Carbon, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Safety and Security, Local Environmental Quality, Water Supply, Substance Abuse, and Opportunities for Youth. 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

Full Time Residents of East Carbon 97.0%
Part Time Residents of East Carbon 3.0%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 86 years
Length of Residency — Average 23 years
Length of Residency — Median 18 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 32.1%

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 East Carbon. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and own their home 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 East Carbon


Demographic Characteristics		 East Carbon Wellbeing Survey
American Community
Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
104 Respondents 		 Online 2022
131 Respondents
Age 18-29 6.8% 7.1% 17.6%
Age 30-39 15.9% 12.5% 13.2%
Age 40-49 26.1% 19.6% 10.2%
Age 50-59 15.9% 13.4% 19.2%
Age 60-69 22.7% 25.0% 18.5%
Age 70 or over 12.5% 22.3% 21.3%
Adult Female 75.0% 79.5% 47.5%
Adult Male 25.0% 20.5% 52.5%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.0% NA
No college degree 79.5% 76.8% 90.6%
College degree (4-year) 20.4% 23.2% 9.4%
Median household income NA NA $29,867
Income under $25,000 20.7% 25.9% 34.4%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 34.5% 27.8% 33.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 21.8% 22.2% 13.9%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 12.6% 16.7% 10.7%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 6.9% 6.5% 7.3%
Income $150,000 or over 3.4% 0.9% 0.5%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 23.5% 35.5% NA
Other religion 50.6% 43.6% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 25.9% 20.9% NA
Hispanic/Latino 13.8% 11.6% 18.8%
White 89.0% 92.7% 94.3%
Nonwhite 11.0% 7.3% 5.8%
Married 73.9% 68.5% 49.4%
Children under 18 in household 40.9% 33.0% 33.7%
Employed 50.0% 37.5% 43.1%
Out of work and looking for work 3.4% 1.8% 3.7%
Other 46.6% 60.7% 53.2%
Own home/Owner occupied 85.2% 82.9% 68.7%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 14.8% 17.1% 31.3%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in East Carbon

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in East Carbon. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in East Carbon was 3.73 with 67% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in East Carbon was 2.98 with 33% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 8% of respondents; 3: 21% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 21% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in East Carbon? Data - 1 Very Poor: 8% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 27% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 6% of respondents

Comparing survey data from East Carbon over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score declined between 2021 and 2020 while the community wellbeing score remained the same. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Graph 3: Change over time graph Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in East Carbon. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.82, 2021 community wellbeing: 2.98, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.73, 2022 community wellbeing: 2.98

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies East Carbon as a Traditional Rural Community (and we have combined these with the Rural Hub/Resort Communities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the Rural city cluster, East Carbon fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. East Carbon was statistically significantly lower than Tremonton, Nephi, Helper, and Beaver in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, East Carbon was significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster except Moab, Price, and Tremonton. 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 East Carbon

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 East Carbon were Connection with Nature (77%), Mental Health (67%), Leisure Time (58%), and Living Standards (55%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (97%), Mental Health (93%), Living Standards (90%), and Local Environmental Quality (88%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 64% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 36% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 80% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 20% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in East Carbon. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 39% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 61% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 43% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 57% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for East Carbon

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in East Carbon

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by East Carbon residents. The number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in East Carbon, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.45; Category: Safety and security- 2021- 3.25 2022- 3.3; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 4.1, 2022- 3.95, Category: Education- 2021- 3.1, 2022- 3.35; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.25; 2022 3.35; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.65; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.0, 2022- 3.3; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.55, Category: Social Connection- 2021- 2.9; 2022- 3.0, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.6, 2022- 2.55.

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 East Carbon 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 East Carbon

  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 East Carbon +
vs
18-39 		         +
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities       +
   +
Education         -
vs $100,000 - $149,999		 + 
Leisure Time            
Living Standards       +
vs A/A/NP 		    
Local Environmental Quality       +
vs Other		   +
Mental Health            
Physical Health              
Safety & Security           + 
Social Connections       +
vs A/A/NP  		    
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education -
vs
18-39 		 +
 		        
Leisure Time            
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health            
Safety and Security            
Social Connections             
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in East Carbon

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in East Carbon. 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 East Carbon, the average score was 2.86. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.75.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in East Carbon. Subtitle: In East Carbon, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 16% of respondents; 2: 25% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 19% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in East Carbon. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to East Carbon as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 15% of respondents; 2: 23% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 27% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection than those who indicated Other Religions. 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 East Carbon take action?            
Do you feel connected to your community?

    +
vs Other 		    

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. East Carbon 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 past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (94%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by gardening (64%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (60%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in East Carbon. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 60% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 94% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 50% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 51% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 64% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 21% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 54% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 49% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For East Carbon respondents, participating in motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters was positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

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

Participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, and gardening were 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.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in East Carbon 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, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 6% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 24% indicated neither, 64% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 72% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 9% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 75% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 53% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 15% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 20% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 13% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 40% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of East Carbon survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (43%). On the pace of economic development, 74% indicated it was too slow and 15% indicated it was just right. 

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in East Carbon? Data – 22% of respondents rated too slow; 43% of respondents rated just right; 16% of respondents rated too fast; 19% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in East Carbon? Data – 74% of respondents rated too slow; 15% of respondents rated just right; 0% of respondents rated too fast; 10% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in East Carbon have varied between 2021 and 2022. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable decrease in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too slow. However, a larger proportion of respondents still indicated that the rate of population growth is just right. Perspectives on economic development have been quite stable with most indicating it's too slow. 

Type: Line Title: East Carbon Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 35% rated too slow, 35% rated just right, 9% rated too fast 2022: 22% rated too slow, 43% rated just right, 16% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: East Carbon Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 79% rated too slow, 15% rated just right, 1% rated too fast 2022: 74% rated too slow, 15% rated just right, 0% rated too fast

The graphs below show how East Carbon 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 East Carbon

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of East Carbon. Water Supply, Opportunities for Youth, and Substance Abuse were the top three concerns with at least 85% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in East Carbon. Subtitle: As you look to the future of East Carbon, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 9% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 91% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% 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- 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 26 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Drugs (5) Homelessness
Police, government (4) Home repair contractors
Clean up and upkeep of city property and homes (4) Social activities
Business development opportunities (3) Fiscal responsibility
Dogs and loose animals (3) ATVs
Wildlife Access to potable water

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about East Carbon and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of East Carbon valued the social climate, many commenting on the sense of community. East Carbon residents also valued the nature and beauty (especially the beautiful views/mountain), recreation, and peace and quiet. In the additional comments section many residents made comments about the city image; many wanting a cleaner city and yards. The residents also made negative comments about substance abuse (mainly about hard drugs) and wanting better safety measures, especially in reference to the police and theft. Recreation was also brought up, with many wanting more activities for the youth.

On This Page