Hyde Park 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

Hyde Park 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 Hyde Park 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, Hyde Park City advertised the survey via email and text alerts, the city newsletter, utility bills, and posters at City Hall. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 448 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 85.7% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Hyde Park survey had 328 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Hyde Park was estimated at 2,915, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 448 survey responses in 2022 represent 15.4% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.26%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Hyde Park were above average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing was more likely to decline for females and those with household incomes below $75,000. Overall Personal Wellbeing increased between 2021 and 2022, while Community Wellbeing remained the same between the two study years. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Rating)

  • Physical Health

Demographic characteristics were related to many wellbeing variables, with religion and household income being particularly influential factors (as those who indicated Latter-day Saints and household incomes above $150,000 rating multiple variables higher than others). 

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were higher in Hyde Park than in most other study communities. Latter-day Saints were higher than those from other religion categories or who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference and those who have resided in Hyde Park for more than 5 years were higher than those living in Hyde Park 5 years or less. 

Extractive Industry was seen as having a negative influence on wellbeing, but Natural Landscape Features were overwhelmingly positive.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast, but were more divided on the Pace of Economic Development. 

Top concerns for the future of Hyde Park were:

  • Water Supply (95% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (70% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Hyde Park?
Small-town feel and positive social climate, good location, access to nature and natural beauty, open space, a peaceful and quiet atmosphere, and feelings of safety.

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 Hyde Park City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Water Supply, Air Quality, and Roads and Transportation. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1.1

Full Time Residents of Hyde Park 97.8%
Part Time Residents of Hyde Park 2.2%
Length of Residency — Range  0- 89 years
Length of Residency — Average  16.3 years
Length of Residency — Median  10 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 32.8%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84318 97.8%
84341 0.4%
Other 1.8%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Hyde Park. People age 60-69, with at least a 4-year college degree, who are married, and those with incomes between $100,000 and $149,999 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 Hyde Park


Demographic Characteristics		 Hyde Park Wellbeing Survey
American Community
Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
328 Respondents		 Online 2022
448 Respondents
Age 18-29 4.0% 3.4% 24.5%
Age 30-39 17.1% 16.7% 18.1%
Age 40-49 17.4% 20.6% 19.2%
Age 50-59 19.5% 15.9% 17.2%
Age 60-69 22.8% 30.0% 9.7%
Age 70 or over 19.1% 13.3% 11.3%
Adult Female 65.1% 55.5% 53.1%
Adult Male 34.9% 44.5% 46.9%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.0% NA
No college degree 38.6% 38.1% 52.3%
College degree (4-year) 61.4% 61.9% 47.7%
Median household income NA NA $76,591
Income under $25,000 2.5% 1.6% 16.9%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 8.9% 8.2% 13.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 22.3% 15.6% 18.0%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 22.0% 19.1% 17.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 27.7% 33.3% 17.7%
Income $150,000 or over 16.6% 22.1% 17.0%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 80.0% 78.8% NA
Other religion 9.5% 10.3% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 10.5% 10.9% NA
Hispanic/Latino 2.7% 1.6% 7.1%
White 97.6% 97.9% 95.7%
Nonwhite 2.4% 2.1% 4.3%
Married 88.8% 88.1% 63.8%
Children under 18 in household 42.1% 41.4% 47.0%
Employed 51.5% 59.3% 61.5%
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 0.5% 2.4%
Other 48.5% 40.2% 36.1%
Own home/Owner occupied 95.3% 96.3% 86.5%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 4.7% 3.7% 13.5%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Hyde Park

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Hyde Park. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Hyde Park was 4.26 with 87% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Hyde Park was 4.06 with 78% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 11% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 41% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Hyde Park? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 47% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 32% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Hyde Park over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score increased and the community wellbeing score stayed the same. 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 Hyde Park. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.18, 2021 community wellbeing: 4.06, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.26, 2022 community wellbeing: 4.06

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Hyde Park fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Hyde Park was statistically significantly higher than Herriman and Santaquin in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of overall community wellbeing, Hyde park was significantly higher than Herriman, 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 Hyde Park

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 three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Hyde Park were Safety and Security (93%), Living Standards (90%), and Education (86%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (97%), Mental Health (97%), Physical Health (93%), and Living Standards (92%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 7% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 93% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 14% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 86% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 10% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 90% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Hyde Park. 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 - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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 - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 30% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 44% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 56% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Hyde Park

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

Scatterplot. Title: Hyde Park 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, and Mental 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: Physical Health.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Hyde Park

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Hyde Park residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time. Considerable increases in ratings were found for many domains in the last year. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Hyde Park, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 4.35, 2022- 4.35; Category: Safety and security- 2021- 4.3 2022- 4.4; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.0, Category: Education- 2021- 4.0, 2022- 4.2; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.7; 2022 4.0; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.9, 2022- 4.1; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.95, 2022- 3.8; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.0, Category: Social Connection- 2021- 3.4; 2022- 3.9, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 3.05, 2022- 3.4.

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 Hyde Park 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 Hyde Park

  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 Hyde Park       +
vs A/A/NP 		    
Connection with Nature       +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Cultural Opportunities +     +

    
Education     +
 +
vs A/A/NP		    
Leisure Time +
vs 40-59		          
Living Standards       +
 +  
Local Environmental Quality       +

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

Community Action and Connection in Hyde Park

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Hyde Park. 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 Hyde Park, the average score was 3.50. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.30.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Hyde Park. Subtitle: In Hyde Park, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 3% of respondents; 2: 11% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 36% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Hyde Park as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 6% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 31% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference or Other Religion. Respondents age 60+ reported higher perceptions of local action than those age 40-59. Respondents who have lived in Hyde Park for 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection and lower perceptions of local action than those residing in Hyde Park for more than 5 years. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Hyde Park take action? +
vs 40-59		     +
   -
Do you feel connected to your community?

    +
   -

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Hyde Park. 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 42 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 193 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 60% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 158 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 41% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 59% 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. Hyde Park was in the upper half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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

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

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (86%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by gardening (84%) and recreating in parks in the city (77%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Hyde Park. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 75% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 86% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 45% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 77% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 84% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 37% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 65% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 52% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

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

Recreating in city parks and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing.

Participating in motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters, recreating in city parks, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, 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, city parks, and trails were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided. Extractive industry was viewed predominantly negatively by respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Hyde Park Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 40% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 29% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 27% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 53% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 8% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 35% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Hyde Park survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (78%). On the pace of economic development, 42% indicated it was too fast, 33% just right, and 13% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Hyde Park? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 15% of respondents rated just right; 78% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Hyde Park. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Hyde Park? Data – 13% of respondents rated too slow; 33% of respondents rated just right; 42% of respondents rated too fast; 12% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Hyde Park have changed between 2021 and 2022. The 2022 survey showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that the current rates of population growth and economic development are too fast, with a corresponding decline in those who felt that population growth and economic development are just right. 

Type: Line Title: Hyde Park Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 2% rated too slow, 33% rated just right, 55% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 15% rated just right, 78% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Hyde Park Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 11% rated too slow, 51% rated just right, 25% rated too fast 2022: 13% rated too slow, 33% rated just right, 42% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Hyde Park 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 Hyde Park

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Hyde Park. Water Supply, Air Quality, and Roads and Transportation were the top three concerns with at least 70% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Hyde Park. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Hyde Park, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 5% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 95% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 66 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Development having water in mind (11) Inflation (2) Motorized vehicle overuse in HP canyon
Overdevelopment (9) Traffic (2) High density housing
Government (6) Infrastructure Community activities
Overpopulation, overcrowding (5) Home inventory available for sale Cultural acceptance of diversity
Library (4) Animal rights Honest news reporting
Walkability and bikeability (3) Firearms being used on city property Onerous requirements on housing
development causing more expensive housing
City planning for growth (3) Secondary water Human trafficking
Open space and parks (3) Grumpy neighbors  
Speeding (2) Slow speed limits  

Hyde Park Housing

Hyde Park chose to add additional questions to the survey regarding housing. Below are the findings related to these questions. 

82% of respondents from Hyde Park owned their own home.

The following question with pictures was included in the survey by Hyde Park City:
“The median house price in Hyde Park City is approximately $560,000. This makes home ownership unattainable for many. Which of the following more affordable housing configurations would you support in Hyde Park?”

The majority of respondents indicated a preference for smaller lots for single-family homes (78%), followed by the garden court design for single family housing with shared green space instead of individual yards (46%).

Type: Bar Title: Support of Affordable Housing Subtitle: Which of the following more affordable housing configurations would you support in Hyde Park? 78% of respondents support smaller lots for single family homes. 46% of respondents support garden court single family housing with shared green space instead of individual yards. 27% of respondents support townhomes or row houses. 26% of respondents support duplexes. 13% of respondents support grand houses which are one large house with more than 1 unit inside.

When asked, “If located in a mixed-use zone in the commercial area, would you support any apartment-style housing?”, 31% said yes, 48% said no, and 21% said they were unsure.

In undeveloped areas, the vast majority (76%) indicated they prefer smaller lots, preserving open land, and better walkable access to services and recreation over large lots with less open space and limited access to services and recreation (24%).

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Hyde Park and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Hyde Park. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, the social climate was highly valued by residents of Hyde Park, this includes comments about community as well as the small-town feel. Safety as well as peace and quiet were highly valued in Hyde Park. Open space as well as nature and beauty were also mentioned by residents as being of value. The additional comments section included many comments on housing as well as growth and development, often being of concern by residents in Hyde Park. Residents also made comments about the local government. There were also comments about wanting a library in Hyde Park. People also made comments about the local environmental quality, many worried about water use in Hyde Park. 

On This Page