Ephraim 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

Ephraim 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 Ephraim 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, Ephraim City advertised the survey via social media, at City Hall, email lists, the city website, and print and electronic newsletters. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 106 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 91.5% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Ephraim survey had 101 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Ephraim was estimated at 5,170, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 106 survey responses in 2022 represent 2.05% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.42%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Ephraim was below average among the 33 study communities, whereas Community Wellbeing was above average. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Education
  • Connection with Nature

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health

Feelings of community connection were higher in Ephraim than in most other study communities (and Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference). 

Top concerns for the future of Ephraim were:

  • Water Supply (91% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Access to Quality Food (83% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (75% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Ephraim? 
Positive social climate with small-town feel, good environmental quality, and a peaceful and quiet place to live. 

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

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

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Ephraim City, key wellbeing issues include: Mental Health, Physical Health, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Access to Quality Food. 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 Ephraim 95.3%
Part Time Residents of Ephraim 4.7%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 72 years
Length of Residency — Average 16.7 years
Length of Residency — Median 11.5 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 35.9%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are 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 Ephraim. People with at least a 4-year college degree, those who are married, age 30-39 and 60-69, own their home, have children under 18 in household, and those with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those with incomes under $25,000 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 Ephraim


Demographic Characteristics		 Ephraim Wellbeing Survey
American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
101 Respondents		 Online 2022
106 Respondents
Age 18-29 15.4% 5.2% 51.2%
Age 30-39 26.4% 28.1% 13.2%
Age 40-49 26.4% 22.9% 12.1%
Age 50-59 7.7% 16.7% 6.3%
Age 60-69 15.4% 20.8% 8.5%
Age 70 or over 8.8% 6.3% 8.7%
Adult Female 57.1% 59.4% 58.3%
Adult Male 42.9% 39.6% 41.7%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 1.0% NA
No college degree 42.9% 42.7% 67.7%
College degree (4-year) 57.1% 57.3% 32.3%
Median household income NA NA $56,750
Income under $25,000 6.7% 6.4% 18.6%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 15.8% 24.5% 28.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 37.1% 25.5% 15.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 28.1% 18.1% 17.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 10.1% 19.1% 15.8%
Income $150,000 or over 2.2% 6.4% 3.9%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 80.9% 74.5% NA
Other religion 11.2% 10.6% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 7.9% 14.9% NA
Hispanic/Latino 3.4% 4.3% 7.9%
White 93.3% 92.6% 90.1%
Nonwhite 6.7% 7.4% 9.9%
Married 79.8% 86.2% 50.5%
Children under 18 in household 55.6% 53.7% 42.2%
Employed 72.5% 69.5% 61.4%
Out of work and looking for work 1.1% 1.1% 3.6%
Other 26.4% 29.5% 35.0%
Own home/Owner occupied 80.0% 83.2% 57.9%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 20.0% 16.8% 42.1%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Ephraim

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Ephraim. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Ephraim was 3.89 with 72% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Ephraim was 3.75 with 66% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Ephraim? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 19% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Ephraim over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that both the average personal wellbeing score and the community wellbeing score increased. 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 Ephraim. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.86, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.57, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.89, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.75

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Ephraim as a Rural Hub/Resort Community (and we have combined these with the Traditional Rural Communities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. Note that in the 2021 reports, Ephraim was placed in the Rapid Growth cluster.

Within the Rural city cluster, Ephraim fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and above average in terms of the community wellbeing score. Ephraim was only statistically significantly higher than Moab in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of overall community wellbeing, Ephraim was significantly higher than Moab, East Carbon, 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 Ephraim

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 Ephraim were Safety and Security (76%), Local Environmental Quality (74%), Education (71%), and Connection with Nature (70%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (97%), Safety and Security (96%), Physical Health (94%), and Living Standards (89%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 64% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 36% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Ephraim. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 25% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 38% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 62% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Ephraim

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Ephraim

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

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Ephraim, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.8; Category: Safety and security- 2021- 4.05 2022- 4.05; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.05, Category: Education- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.8; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.5; 2022 3.55; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.65; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.95, 2022- 3.9; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.55, 2022- 3.35, Category: Social Connection- 2021- 3.1; 2022- 3.3, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.8, 2022- 3.1.

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 Ephraim 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 Ephraim

  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 Ephraim            
Connection with Nature   -        
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 40-59		         -
Education +
vs 40-59		          
Leisure Time +
vs 40-59		          
Living Standards +          
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health   -        
Physical Health              
Safety & Security            
Social Connections +
vs 40-59		     +
vs A/A/NP 		   -
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature           -
Cultural Opportunities   +        
Education            
Leisure Time            
Living Standards         +
vs $75,000 - $99,999		  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health -
vs 40-59		  
       -
Physical Health            
Safety and Security -
vs 18-39		          
Social Connections             
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Ephraim

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Ephraim. 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 Ephraim, the average score was 3.11. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.22.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Ephraim. Subtitle: In Ephraim, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 6% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 44% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 14% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Ephraim. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Ephraim as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection than those age 18-39. This is based on a multivariate 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 Ephraim take action? +
vs 18-39		          
Do you feel connected to your community?

    +
vs A/A/NP 		    

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Ephraim. Of the 6 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 21 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 49 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 59% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 24 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 29% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% 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. Ephraim was in the lower half on perceived community action and the upper half on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; East Carbon 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (84%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (77%) and gardening (74%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Ephraim. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 77% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 84% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 47% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 68% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 74% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 40% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 51% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 50% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

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

Recreating in city parks and gardening were positively and significantly related to community connections.  

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, lakes, 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 Ephraim 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 - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 57% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 23% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 42% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 29% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 58% indicated neither, 13% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 24% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 54% indicated neither, 21% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Ephraim survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (53%). On the pace of economic development, 36% indicated it was just right, 32% too fast, and 26% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Ephraim? Data – 4% of respondents rated too slow; 39% of respondents rated just right; 53% of respondents rated too fast; 4% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Ephraim. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Ephraim? Data – 26% of respondents rated too slow; 36% of respondents rated just right; 32% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Ephraim have varied between 2021 and 2022. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast (from 35% to 53%), with a similar decline in those who felt that population growth is just right (from 49% to 39%). On the current pace of economic development, there was a substantial increase in the number of people indicating that it is too fast (from 13% to 32%). 

Type: Line Title: Ephraim Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 6% rated too slow, 49% rated just right, 35% rated too fast 2022: 4% rated too slow, 39% rated just right, 53% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Ephraim Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 39% rated too slow, 43% rated just right, 13% rated too fast 2022: 26% rated too slow, 36% rated just right, 32% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Ephraim 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 Ephraim

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

Title: Concerns in Ephraim. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Ephraim, 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- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 20 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Restaurants (2) Arts Lack of social opportunities
Deer problem (2) Losing small town feel Government
Road safety (2) Cultural diversity Support for caretakers
Mismanagement Schools Light pollution
Large garbage in the hills Zoning Gym

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Ephraim and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Ephraim. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, the social climate in Ephraim was highly valued by residents, including the small, rural community. Ephraim also valued the local environmental quality, valuing the clean air specifically. The peace and quiet were also valued in Ephraim. The section with additional comments included many mentions of retail and business in Ephraim, many wanting more grocery store options. There were also comments concerning growth and development as well as housing, being worried about both of these categories.

On This Page