Layton 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

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

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in March of 2022, Layton City advertised the survey via social media and utility bills. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 319 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 90.9% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Layton survey had 403 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Layton was estimated at 53,537, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 319 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.6% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.47%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Layton were above average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing increased in Layton between 2021 and 2022 and Community Wellbeing remained nearly the same between the two study years. Wellbeing, domain ratings, and domain importance varied within Layton by demographic characteristics (with religion, age, and income being particularly important factors across multiple variables). 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Local Environmental Quality

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were lower in Layton than in many other study communities.

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

Top concerns for the future of Layton were:

  • Water Supply (93% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (87% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (76% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Layton?
Positive social social climate, abundant recreation, access to nature and natural beauty, sense 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 Layton City, key wellbeing issues include: Air Quality, Water Supply, Local Environmental Quality, and Affordable Housing. 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 Layton 99.1%
Part Time Residents of Layton 0.9%
Length of Residency — Range 0.4- 77 years
Length of Residency — Average 18.1 years
Length of Residency — Median 14 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 32.92%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84041 64.6%
84040 34.5%
Other 0.9%

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 Layton. People who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, and those who own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29, those who are employed, and those with incomes between $100,000 and $149,999 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 Layton


Demographic Characteristics		 Layton Wellbeing Survey
American Community
Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
403 Respondents		 Online 2022
319 Respondents
Age 18-29 6.7% 9.0% 25.3%
Age 30-39 25.1% 29.3% 21.5%
Age 40-49 31.3% 22.8% 19.1%
Age 50-59 17.3% 14.1% 13.2%
Age 60-69 13.7% 14.8% 12.5%
Age 70 or over 5.8% 10.0% 8.4%
Adult Female 68.6% 71.3% 49.7%
Adult Male 30.8% 28.7% 50.3%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.0% NA
No college degree 44.9% 38.8% 65.4%
College degree (4-year) 55.1% 61.2% 34.6%
Median household income NA NA  
Income under $25,000 2.7% 3.1% 10.0%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 11.8% 10.1% 15.7%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 18.3% 17.4% 19.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 20.7% 15.3% 18.3%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 31.0% 31.0% 19.8%
Income $150,000 or over 15.4% 23.0% 16.7%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 61.7% 60.1% NA
Other religion 19.8% 19.6% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 18.6% 20.3% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.8% 7.7% 13.4%
White 94.6% 94.8% 85.7%
Nonwhite 5.4% 5.2% 14.3%
Married 84.8% 82.8% 57.6%
Children under 18 in household 59.5% 52.5% 43.8%
Employed 63.7% 56.7% 69.4%
Out of work and looking for work 1.5% 1.0% 1.6%
Other 36.8% 42.2% 28.2%
Own home/Owner occupied 90.0% 90.0% 72.0%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 10.0% 10.0% 28.0%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Layton

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Layton. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Layton was 4.16 with 86% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Layton was 3.71 with 62% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Layton. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 12% of respondents; 4: 55% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Layton. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Layton? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 8% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 44% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 19% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing were higher for those in zipcode 84040, but this difference was not statistically significant. 

Comparing survey data from Layton 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 nearly 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 Layton. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.98, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.72, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.16, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.71

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Layton as a City of the 1st & 2nd Class (and we have combined these with Mid-Sized Cities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the more urban city cluster, Layton fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and below average in terms of average community wellbeing score. Layton was statistically significantly higher than Tooele, Logan, and Midvale in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Layton was significantly higher than Tooele, Midvale, and Logan, but statistically significantly lower than South Jordan and Draper. 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 Layton

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 Layton were Safety and Security (77%), Living Standards (75%), and Mental Health (73%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Safety and Security (98%), Physical Health (95%), and Living Standards (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Layton. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 60% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 40% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Layton. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 32% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 46% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 54% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Layton

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

Scatterplot. Title: Layton 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, Education, Physical Health, and Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Social Connections, Leisure Time, and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Layton

The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2021 and 2022 by Layton residents. There was considerable improvement in wellbeing domain ratings in the last year! The number of respondents changed over time and individuals were not tracked. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Layton, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 3.9, 2022- 4.0; Category: Safety and security- 2021- 3.8 2022- 3.9; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.6, Category: Education- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.85; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.45; 2022 3.75; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.85; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.4; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.65, Category: Social Connection- 2021- 3.25; 2022- 3.55, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.8, 2022- 3.2.

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 Layton 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 Layton

  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 40-59		     +
    
Wellbeing in Layton            
Connection with Nature +
     +
vs A/A/NP 		+
vs Under $75,000		  
Cultural Opportunities +
     +

 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Education     +
 +

 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Leisure Time +
vs 40-59		     +
vs A/A/NP		    
Living Standards       +

 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality +
vs 40-59		     +

 +
vs Under $75,000 - $99,999		  
Mental Health +
     +

 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Physical Health              
Safety & Security       +
vs Other 		    
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 18-39		 +
        
Education       +
vs Other		    
Leisure Time     +      
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality         +
vs $100,000-
$149,999		  
Mental Health   + 
     +
vs Under
$75,000 		  
Physical Health +
vs 40-59		   +

   +
vs Under
$75,000 and $100,000-$149,999		  
Safety and Security       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Social Connections   +
   +
vs A/A/NP		     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Layton

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Layton. 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 Layton, the average score was 3.04. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.06.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Layton. Subtitle: In Layton, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 21% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 26% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Layton. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Layton as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 22% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 10% 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 those from other religions. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those age 40-59. Respondents in the highest income category ($150,000+) reported higher levels of community connection than those with household incomes under $75,000, and higher perceptions of local action than those with household incomes ranging from under $75,000 to $99,999. 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 Layton take action? +
vs 40-59		     +
 +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 40-59		     +  +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Layton. Of the 5 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 37 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 92% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 8% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 159 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 94 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 53% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% 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. Layton 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 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.

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 (82%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by recreating in parks in the city (80%), gardening (77%), and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (77%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Layton. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 77% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 82% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 34% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 80% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 77% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 40% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 54% 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 Layton respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing.

Enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood was positively and significantly related to community wellbeing.

All activities except walking a pet in city or watching or reading nature-related programs or publications were  positively and significantly related to community connection.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, city parks, trails, rivers and streams 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 Layton 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, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 52% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 40% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 41% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 22% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 55% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 44% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 11% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Layton survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (71%). On the pace of economic development, 48% indicated it was too fast, 32% just right, and 9% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Layton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Layton? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 19% of respondents rated just right; 71% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Layton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Layton? Data – 9% of respondents rated too slow; 32% of respondents rated just right; 48% of respondents rated too fast; 11% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show that perceptions on the current rate of population growth and pace of economic development in Layton did not change substantially between 2021 and 2022. The most notable difference was on the current pace of economic development, where the percent of those indicating it's too fast increased from 42% to 48% with a corresponding decline in those saying it's just right (from 38% to 32%). 

Type: Line Title: Layton Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 1% rated too slow, 20% rated just right, 71% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 19% rated just right, 71% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Layton Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 8% rated too slow, 38% rated just right, 42% rated too fast 2022: 9% rated too slow, 32% rated just right, 48% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Layton 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 Layton

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

Title: Concerns in Layton. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Layton, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 7% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 93% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 54 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
High density housing, overdevelopment (7) Kids abusing public land
Noise pollution (6) Government
Parks and recreation (6) Parking
Green space, open space (5) Emergency preparedness
Racial equality, diversity (4) Walkability
Traffic (3) Aggressive drivers
Economy (2) Public transportation
City image (2) Arts
Taxes (2) Death
Library  

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Layton and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Layton valued the social climate, particularly the friendly neighbors, sense of community, and being near family. Residents of Layton also valued recreation, especially the trails and parks. Access to nature, the surrounding natural beauty, and sense of safety were also highly valued. In the additional comments section many residents had concerns regarding recreation, many wanting more trails, parks, and recreation centers. Growth and development was also a concern, with many wanting it to be limited. Many Layton residents also commented on poor road conditions and a lack of affordable housing. 

On This Page