Lehi 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

Lehi 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 Lehi 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 February of 2022, Lehi City advertised the survey via a city newsletter sent with utility bills and social media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 245 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 84.5% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Lehi survey had 243 responses and the 2020 Lehi survey had 295 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Lehi was estimated at 40,484, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 245 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.61% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.24%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Lehi was above average among the 33 study cities and Community Wellbeing was below average. Overall Personal Wellbeing declined in Lehi between 2020 and 2021, but increased between 2021 and 2022. Community Wellbeing remained nearly the same between the three study years.

Wellbeing, domain ratings, and domain importance varied by demographic characteristics in Lehi, with religion and household income being particularly influential factors. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were lower in Lehi than in most other study communities (and Latter-day Saints were higher than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference).

Manufacturing and Extractive Industry and Residential Development were seen to have negative influences on wellbeing for the majority of respondents, though Natural Landscapes were highly positive.

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

Top concerns for the future of Lehi were:

  • Water Supply (93% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (90% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (90% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (86% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Lehi?
The location of the city and its many amenities and things to do.

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

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Lehi 99.2%
Part Time Residents of Lehi 0.8%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 79 years
Length of Residency — Average 12.7 years
Length of Residency — Median 9 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 36.7%

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 Lehi. People age 40-49, those who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below.

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Lehi

Demographic Characteristics Lehi Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
295
Respondents		 Online 2021
243 Respondents		 Online 2022
245 Respondents
Age 18-29 10.5% 13.8% 10.2% 26.1%
Age 30-39 33.5% 34.4% 32.5% 27.4%
Age 40-49 31.5% 32.3% 33.5% 20.9%
Age 50-59 11.3% 10.8% 9.7% 12.4%
Age 60-69 10.1% 5.1% 8.7% 6.9%
Age 70 or over 3.2% 3.6% 5.3% 6.3%
Adult Female 65.5% 70.8% 71.8% 50.0%
Adult Male 34.5% 29.2% 28.2% 50.0%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 0.0% NA
No college degree 41.9% 33.3% 33.5% 54.7%
College degree (4-year) 58.1% 66.7% 66.5% 45.3%
Median household income NA NA NA $101,429
Income under $25,000 1.3% 1.5% 0.5% 6.1%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 7.1% 5.2% 6.4% 9.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 15.1% 17.8% 10.9% 16.0%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 23.1% 18.8% 17.8% 17.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 30.7% 34.6% 37.6% 28.7%
Income $150,000 or over 22.7% 22.0% 26.7% 22.0%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 74.3% 74.1% 83.0% NA
Other religion 10.2% 11.4% 3.0% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 15.5% 14.5% 14.0% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 4.6% 4.9% 8.6%
White 92.3% 93.2% 95.5% 91.6%
Nonwhite 7.7% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 6.8% 4.5% 8.4%
Married 89.5% 89.7% 86.9% 66.9%
Children under 18 in household 63.6% 67.2% 60.5% 57.8%
Employed 67.1% 66.5% 67.3% 69.9%
Out of work and looking for work 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% 2.9%
Other 31.7% 33.0% 32.7% 27.2%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 93.3% 91.3% 78.9%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 6.6% 8.7% 21.1%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Lehi

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Lehi. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Lehi was 4.10 with 81% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Lehi was 3.61 with 57% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Lehi. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 51% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 30% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Lehi. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Lehi? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 44% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 14% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Lehi over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score declined between 2020 and 2021, but increased between 2021 and 2022.  The average community wellbeing score remained nearly the same between 2020 and 2022. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Lehi. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.09, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.62, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.98, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.60, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.10, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.61

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

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

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing in each area. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top four highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Lehi were Safety and Security (77%), Education (76%), Living Standards (75%), and Mental Health (68%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (97%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Lehi. 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 - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 65% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 35% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% 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 - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% 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 - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 61% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 39% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Lehi. 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 - 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 - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 33% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% 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 Lehi

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Lehi. Safety and Security, Education, Living Standards, Physical Health, and Mental Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No domains fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings. 

Scatterplot. Title: Lehi 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: Leisure Time. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Social Connections, Local Environmental Quality, and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: None.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Lehi

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Lehi residents. The number of respondents changed over time. There were substantial rebounds in most domains in the last year. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Lehi, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 4.0, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 4.0; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.7, 2022- 4.0; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.2, 2021- 3.3, 2022- 3.4, Category: Education- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.95; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.5, 2022 3.7; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.45, 2022- 3.75; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.15, 2021- 3.15, 2022- 3.0; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.3, 2022- 3.6, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.55, 2021- 3.05; 2022- 3.6, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.9, 2021- 2.5, 2022- 3.0.

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 Lehi 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 Lehi

  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		     +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Wellbeing in Lehi       -
vs Other		    
Connection with Nature +
vs 18-39		          
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 18-39		     +
vs A/A/NP		    
Education       +
 +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  
Leisure Time         +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  
Living Standards         +  
Local Environmental Quality         +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  
Mental Health       +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  
Physical Health              
Safety & Security         +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  
Social Connections       +

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

Community Action and Connection in Lehi

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Lehi. 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 Lehi, the average score was 2.93. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.86.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Lehi. Subtitle: In Lehi, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Lehi. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Lehi as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 11% of respondents; 2: 29% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 17% 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. 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 Lehi take action?       +
vs A/A/NP		    
Do you feel connected to your community?

    +
vs A/A/NP		    

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Lehi. Of the 4 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 35 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 94% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 6% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 109 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 72% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 67 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 63% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% 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. Lehi was in the lower half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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

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

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Recreating in parks in the city (84%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (75%) and gardening (72%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Lehi. 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. 70% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 31% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 84% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 72% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 43% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 54% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 47% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

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

Participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters, city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, and gardening were positively and significantly related to community connection. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, rivers and streams, lakes, and trails were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. There was a particularly strong negative perception of extractive industry among Lehi respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Lehi Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 53% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 70% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 53% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 54% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 21% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 67% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 58% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 8% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Lehi survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (89%). On the pace of economic development, 69% indicated it was too fast, 22% just right, and 8% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Lehi. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Lehi? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 9% of respondents rated just right; 89% of respondents rated too fast; 1% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Lehi. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Lehi? Data – 8% of respondents rated too slow; 22% of respondents rated just right; 69% of respondents rated too fast; 2% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show that perceptions on the current rate of population growth and pace of economic development in Lehi did not change substantially over the last few years. Most respondents continue to indicate they see the rate of population growth as too fast (up to 89% in 2022). The most notable difference was the increase in respondents indicating that the current pace of economic development is too fast from 61% to 69%. 

Type: Line Title: Lehi Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 0% rated too slow, 12% rated just right, 83% rated too fast 2021: 0% rated too slow, 12% rated just right, 84% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 9% rated just right, 89% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Lehi Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 9% rated too slow, 31% rated just right, 56% rated too fast 2021: 5% rated too slow, 29% rated just right, 61% rated too fast 2022: 8% rated too slow, 22% rated just right, 69% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Lehi 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 Lehi

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Lehi. Water Supply, Air Quality, Roads and Transportation, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with at least 90% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Lehi. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Lehi, 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- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 10% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 90% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 10% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 90% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% 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
Traffic (6) More splash pads, larger parks Enforcing speed limits
Overdevelopment (5) Taxes Theft
Overpopulation (4) Better synchronized traffic lights Government
Crowding in schools (4) Diversity Zoning
Green space and open space (4) Senior care Lack of cultural activities
Utilities (3) Infrastructure Library services
High density housing (3) Red light running Quality of life
Smell of local farms (2) Protecting Jordan River ecosystem Town division
Services for people with disabilities Backyard space for housing Affordability

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Lehi and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Lehi. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, many residents of Lehi valued the location of the city and its amenities, with it being central between Salt Lake City and Provo, and having valuable shopping centers, recreation, education, and entertainment. Many valued the social climate of Lehi, valuing its safety, cleanliness, and the community. There was a strong sense of place with some comments. The additional comments section included concerns mainly targeted growth and development and its consequences. Many residents were concerned with residential and business development, and what this means for transportation. Traffic was a big concern, and safety with children and busy roads. A few comments felt there was a divide between the city due to I-15.

On This Page