Herriman 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

Herriman 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 Herriman survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in April of 2022, Herriman City advertised the survey via the city newsletter, the city website, social media, and marquee signs. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 136 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 79.4% complete responses.
  • The 2021 survey had 231 responses and the 2020 survey had 375 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Herriman was estimated at 27,505, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 136 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.5% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 8.38%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Herriman were below average among the 33 study cities. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Leisure Time

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development in Herriman was too fast. 

Top concerns for the future of Herriman were:

  • Water Supply (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (83% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (80% Moderate or Major Concern)

Single-family homes on 10,000-square-foot (1/4 acre) lots and 21,000-square-foot (1/2 acre) lots were the most wanted housing types. 

Those with longer commutes had statistically higher overall personal wellbeing scores.

What do people value most about Herriman? 
Good recreation opportunities and a positive social climate. 

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 Herriman City, key wellbeing issues include: Leisure Time, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Roads and Transportation. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Herriman NA
Part Time Residents of Herriman 100.0%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 35 years
Length of Residency — Average 8.3 years
Length of Residency — Median 6 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 48.5%

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 Herriman. People who are female, married, and have at least a 4- year college degree 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 Herriman


Demographic Characteristics		 Herriman Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
375 Respondents		 Online 2021
231 Respondents		 Online 2022
136 Respondents
Age 18-29 11.2% 12.9% 13.8% 23.8%
Age 30-39 26.5% 34.3% 30.3% 27.5%
Age 40-49 20.8% 34.8% 29.4% 23.1%
Age 50-59 16.0% 10.7% 13.8% 13.9%
Age 60-69 13.4% 6.2% 9.2% 6.2%
Age 70 or over 12.1% 1.1% 3.7% 5.5%
Adult Female 70.7% 66.9% 70.6% 53.1%
Adult Male 29.3% 33.1% 28.4% 46.9%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 0.9% NA
No college degree 46.9% 52.2% 45.9% 61.4%
College degree (4-year) 53.1% 47.8% 54.1% 38.6%
Median household income NA NA NA $102,096
Income under $25,000 1.0% 0.6% 2.8% 3.3%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 5.8% 4.7% 3.8% 12.6%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 14.4% 12.9% 10.4% 16.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 17.0% 15.3% 18.9% 14.3%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 38.5% 41.2% 34.0% 29.4%
Income $150,000 or over 23.4% 25.3% 30.2% 23.9%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 56.6% 54.4% 56.2% NA
Other religion 17.5% 18.1% 16.2% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 25.9% 27.5% 27.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 7.9% 9.2% 9.0%
White 88.3% 95.3% 95.2% 86.7%
Nonwhite 11.7% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 4.7% 4.8% 13.3%
Married 89.7% 89.3% 79.8% 64.7%
Children under 18 in household 74.5% 75.3% 59.6% 60.8%
Employed 76.1% 72.9% 73.1% 72.2%
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 3.2%
Other 23.3% 26.5% 26.9% 24.5%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 91.0% 89.0% 85.0%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 9.0% 11.0% 15.0%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Herriman

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Herriman. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Herriman was 3.87 with 75% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Herriman was 3.49 with 55% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 52% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Herriman? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 47% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 9% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Herriman over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score and the community wellbeing score stayed nearly the same between 2021 and 2022. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Herriman. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 3.99, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.54, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.86, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.47, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.87, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.49

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Herriman as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within Rapid Growth city cluster, Herriman fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Herriman was statistically significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster except Saratoga Springs and Santaquin in terms overall personal wellbeing. In terms of overall community wellbeing, Herriman was significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster except Saratoga Springs, Lehi, and Santaquin. 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 Herriman

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 Herriman were Living Standards (73%), Mental Health (69%), Safety and Security (69%), and Education (66%). The four most important wellbeing domains were followed by Mental Health (97%), Safety and Security (97%), Living Standards (92%), and Physical Health (85%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 61% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 39% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 70% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 30% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Herriman. 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 - 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 - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 31% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 50% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 50% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Herriman

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

Scatterplot. Title: Herriman Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Local Environmental Quality, Social Connections, and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Herriman

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Herriman residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Herriman, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.85; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.75; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.35, 2021- 3.25, 2022- 3.35, Category: Education- 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.7; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.55, 2021- 3.35, 2022 3.6; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.8; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.3, 2021- 3.2, 2022- 3.1; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.3, 2021- 3.2, 2022- 3.4, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.35, 2021- 3.2; 2022- 3.35, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.7, 2021- 2.6, 2022- 2.8.

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 Herriman 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 Herriman

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)
 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing         +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Wellbeing in Herriman       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Connection with Nature +
vs 18-39		          
Cultural Opportunities         +
vs $75,000 - $99,999		  
Education     +      
Leisure Time            
Living Standards       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Local Environmental Quality +
vs 40-59		     +
vs Other 		    
Mental Health       +
vs Other 		    
Physical Health              
Safety & Security            
Social Connections            
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 40-59		          
Education            
Leisure Time +
vs 40-59		          
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality +
 +
        
Mental Health    
   +
vs Other 		    
Physical Health            
Safety and Security            
Social Connections         -
vs $75,000 - $149,999		   
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Herriman

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Herriman. 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 Herriman, the average score was 2.96. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.71.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Herriman. Subtitle: In Herriman, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 23% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 19% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Herriman. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Herriman as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 14% of respondents; 2: 27% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 18% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Herriman. Of the 9 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 89% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 22 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 82% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 18% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 64 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 29 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 55% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. Herriman 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. Recreating in parks in the city (84%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (72%) and enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (69%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Herriman. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 72% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 69% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 43% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 84% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 68% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 37% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 36% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 58% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Herriman respondents, participating in city recreation programs was positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing and community connections, but none of the above activities were related to community wellbeing. 

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 Herriman Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 1% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 60% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 73% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 49% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 18% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 29% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 31% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 59% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 8% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Herriman survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (89%). On the pace of economic development, 48% indicated it was too fast, 25% too slow, and 19% just right.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Herriman? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 7% of respondents rated just right; 89% of respondents rated too fast; 3% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Herriman? Data – 25% of respondents rated too slow; 19% of respondents rated just right; 48% of respondents rated too fast; 8% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show that perceptions on the current rate of population growth in Herriman did not change substantially between 2020 and 2022. On the current pace of economic development, there has been a sharp increase in the proportion of respondents indicating that it is too fast (from 23% to 48%). The proportion indicating it's too slow has declined correspondingly (from 48% to 25%). 

Type: Line Title: Herriman Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 1% rated too slow, 7% rated just right, 91% rated too fast 2021: 1% rated too slow, 6% rated just right, 90% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 7% rated just right, 89% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Herriman Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 48% rated too slow, 25% rated just right, 23% rated too fast 2021: 28% rated too slow, 27% rated just right,c39% rated too fast 2022: 25% rated too slow, 19% rated just right, 48% rated too fast  

The graphs below show how Herriman 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 Herriman

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Herriman. Water Supply, Roads and Transportation, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with over 82% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Herriman. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Herriman, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% 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- 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 18 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Traffic (2) Diversity Preservation of 
history and culture
Government (2) Taxes Walkability
High density housing (2) Music Church/state
Medical infrastructure Open spaces  
Water quality More trees  

Additional Herriman Questions

Additional questions were added to the 2022 by Herriman City regarding housing and commuting. Below are the findings. 

Housing in Herriman

71% of respondents from Herriman owned their own home.

Herriman respondents were asked to indicate the types of housing they would like to see more of in Herriman. Single-family homes on 10,000-square-foot (1/4 acre) lots and 21,000-square-foot (1/2 acre) lots were the most popular at 59% and 50% of respondents respectively. Affordable single-family “workforce” housing reserved for qualified moderate-income buyers was supported by 36% of respondents.

Type: Bar Title: Housing Preferences Subtitle: What type of housing would you like to see more of in Herriman? Check all that apply Data: 59% would like single family homes on 1/4 acre lots. 50% would like single family Homs on 1/2 acre lots or larger. 36% would like affordable single family workforce housing reserved for qualified moderate-income buyers. 30% would like single family homes on 8,000 square foot lots. 20% would like single family homes on 5.000 square foot lots. 18% would like single family Homs on 6,000 square foot lots. 16% would like detached accessory dwelling units located behind single family homes. 15% would like single family homes for rent. 13% would like townhomes or condos available for purchase. 9% would like apartments available for rent.

Commuting in Herriman

51% of Herriman Respondents Commute for Work
(down from 57% in 2021)

95% Commute Via Personal Vehicle
(a small number use public transit, work provided transportation, or walk to work)

Average Commute 30 Minutes
(Range = 2-80 Minutes, with over 60% commuting 30 minutes or less)

There was no statistically significant correlation between whether or not someone had a commute and overall personal wellbeing or community wellbeing. However, those with longer commutes had statistically higher overall personal wellbeing scores.

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Herriman and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Herriman. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Herriman highly valued the social climate, mainly mentioning their neighbors and community. People also valued the recreation opportunities in Herriman, many mentioning trails and hiking. Open space as well as peace and quiet were also valued in Herriman. The additional comments section included many comments about housing in Herriman, many wanting high density housing to be limited. Transportation was also a common comment by residents of Herriman, many commenting on needing more east to west roads. There were also growth and development comments, worried about increased population.

On This Page