Logan 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

Logan 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 Logan 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, Logan City advertised the survey via social media, email lists, the Parks and Recreation Board, the Golf Advisory Board, and the Cache Community Connections Interfaith group. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 476 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 89.1% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Logan survey had 563 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Logan was estimated at 39,071, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 476 survey responses in 2022 represent 1.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.46%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Logan were below average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing increased between 2021 and 2022 and Community Wellbeing remained nearly the same between the two study years. 

Wellbeing, domains, and domain importance varied greatly by demographic characteristics with age, gender, education, religion, and income playing key roles.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Education
  • Connection to Nature
  • Physical Health

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

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

Top concerns for the future of Logan:

  • Affordable Housing (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (74% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Logan?
Scenery and outdoor recreation, open spaces, sense of safety, positive social climate, smaller-town feel, adequate amenities, and activities and opportunities provided by Utah State University. 

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 Logan City, key wellbeing issues include: Air Quality, Water Supply, 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 Logan 96.6%
Part Time Residents of Logan 3.4%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 81 years
Length of Residency — Average 19.4 years
Length of Residency — Median 14.5 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 25.8%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84321 67.0%
84341 28.4%
84322 0.4%
84323 1.3%
Other 2.1%

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 Logan. 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 with incomes under $25,000, and those who are Hispanic/Latino 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 Logan

Demographic Characteristics Logan Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
563 Respondents		 Online 2022 476
Respondents
Age 18-29 24.8% 22.9% 56.5%
Age 30-39 22.5% 22.9% 14.1%
Age 40-49 19.6% 18.2% 9.9%
Age 50-59 12.3% 13.5% 6.7%
Age 60-69 12.1% 10.2% 5.9%
Age 70 or over  8.6% 12.3% 6.9%
Adult Female 70.4% 68.1% 49.9%
Adult Male 29.6% 30.7% 50.1%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 1.2% NA
No college degree 37.4% 35.5% 63.0%
College degree (4-year) 62.6% 64.5% 37.0%
Median household income NA NA $43,056
Income under $25,000 13.8% 10.2% 24.0%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 23.6% 17.4% 33.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 22.3% 19.9% 18.6%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 13.6% 18.6% 12.1%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.6% 18.2% 8.3%
Income $150,000 or over 10.2% 15.7% 4.0%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 49.3% 47.1% NA
Other religion 19.4% 16.3% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 31.4% 36.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino 11.0% 4.8% 14.7%
White 95.2% 94.5% 86.0%
Nonwhite 4.8% 5.5% 14.0%
Married 75.2% 76.3% 47.9%
Children under 18 in household 43.7% 41.9% 32.2%
Employed 63.9% 68.3% 68.9%
Out of work and looking for work 1.5% 0.9% 2.4%
Other 34.6% 30.7% 28.6%
Own home/Owner occupied 65.8% 72.6% 38.6%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 34.2% 27.4% 61.4%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Logan

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Logan. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Logan was 3.89 with 73% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Logan was 3.46 with 51% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 21% of respondents; 4: 51% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Logan? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2:11% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 12% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Logan over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score increased between 2021 and 2022 and the community wellbeing score remained 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 Logan. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.81, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.46, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.89, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.46

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the more urban city cluster, Logan fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Logan was statistically significantly lower than Layton, Cottonwood Heights, Millcreek, and Draper in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Logan was statistically significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster except Tooele, Midvale and West Jordan. 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 Logan

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 Logan were Safety and Security (77%), Education (75%), and Connection with Nature (71%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (97%), Safety and Security (93%), Living Standards (93%), and Physical Health (91%). 

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Logan. 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 - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 60% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% 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 Logan. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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 - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% 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 - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% 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 - 27% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% 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 - 34% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 66% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Logan

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Logan

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Logan residents. The number of respondents changed over time. There was considerable increase in many domain ratings in the past year. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Logan, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.6; Category: Safety and Security- 2021- 4.0, 2022- 4.05; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.85, Category: Education- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.95; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.45; 2022 3.7; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.6; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.15, 2022- 3.2; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.55, Category: Social Connections- 2021- 3.1; 2022- 3.35, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.65, 2022- 3.1.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables for age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships among Logan 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 Logan

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest
Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +

+  +

 +

  
Wellbeing in Logan        +

 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Connection with Nature     +     -
Cultural Opportunities +      +
 		   -
Education +
vs 18-39		   +

  +

    +
  
Leisure Time +   +

   +
vs Under $75,000 and 
$100,000-$149,999		 -
Living Standards +   +

  +

 +
vs Under
$75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality        +

    
Mental Health + - +  +
vs A/A/NP 		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Physical Health       +   +

  
Safety & Security +
vs 40-59		  - +  +

 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Social Connections +    +

  +

 +
vs $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     +
      
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 18-39		 + +  -
vs A/A/NP		    
Education     +   +
vs $75,000- $99,999 		  
Leisure Time -
vs 18-39		      -
vs A/A/NP		    -
Living Standards         +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  -
Local Environmental Quality        -
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $75,000- $99,999 		  
Mental Health   + 
     +
  
Physical Health +
vs 18-39		   +  +
vs A/A/NP		 +
vs $75,000- $99,999 		  
Safety and Security +      +

    
Social Connections +
vs 18-39		 + +  -
vs A/A/NP		     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Logan

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Logan. 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 Logan, the average score was 2.98. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.95.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Logan. Subtitle: In Logan, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 23% of respondents; 3: 40% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Logan. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Logan as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 11% of respondents; 2: 25% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 26% 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 18-59. Respondents with at least a 4-year college degree reported higher levels of community connection than those without a degree. Respondents in the highest income category ($150,000+) reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than respondents with household incomes under $75,000. Respondents who have lived in Logan for 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection than those residing in Logan for more than 5 years. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Logan take action? +
     +
 		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Do you feel connected to your community? +


   +
 +

 +
vs Under $75,000		 -

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Logan. Of the 26 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 92% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 8% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 92 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 221 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 62% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 98 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 42% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% 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. Logan 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. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (88%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by recreating in parks in the city (83%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (81%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Logan. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 81% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 88% 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. 83% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 70% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 32% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 60% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 54% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

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

Participating in city recreation programs was positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

Participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters, participating in city recreation programs, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, gardening, and 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 Logan 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, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 57% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 75% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 42% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 43% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 56% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 41% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 13% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Logan survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (76%). On the pace of economic development, 51% indicated it was too fast, 31% just right, and 13% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Logan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Logan? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 17% of respondents rated just right; 76% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Logan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Logan? Data – 13% of respondents rated too slow; 31% of respondents rated just right; 51% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Logan have changed from 2021 to 2022. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast (from 61% to 76%). On the current pace of economic development, those indicating it's too fast increased sharply from 30% to 51%. 

Type: Line Title: Logan Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 3% rated too slow, 26% rated just right, 61% rated too fast 2022: 2% rated too slow, 17% rated just right, 76% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Logan Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 24% rated too slow, 34% rated just right, 30% rated too fast 2022: 13% rated too slow, 31% rated just right, 51% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Logan 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 Logan

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Logan. Affordable Housing, Air Quality, and Water Supply were the top three concerns with at least 86% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Logan. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Logan, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 84 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 and parking (9) Open space (2) Car emissions
Government (8) Utilities (2) Power supply
High density housing, overdevelopment (7) Public transportation Diversity
Housing options (6) Wildlife management Police
Zoning (5) Our representation Mosquito abatement
Overcrowding, overpopulation (3) Crime Waste management
Education (3) Quality dining and entertainment Library
Politics (3) Local divisiveness Religion
Homelessness (2) Public lands Agriculture
Infrastructure (2) Preserving local history Equity
Inflation (2) Child healthcare access Recycling
Community connection (2) Walkability Neighbors turning other
neighbors in to the city to try to make them sell

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Logan and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, Logan residents valued the scenery and outdoor recreation, including mountains, trails, canyons, and parks. On a similar note, many residents also valued the open spaces in the city, such as agricultural land. Safety was highly valued, along with the social climate. Many commented on enjoying the atmosphere of the city, with good community members, cultural opportunities, the activities and opportunities USU provides, and a smaller-town feel that still has necessary amenities in close proximity. In the additional comments section many residents brought up concerns with growth and development. For those that value open spaces and the current size of the city, there were concerns that Logan is growing too fast and not growing in the way they would like to see. Some of these comments mentioned too many fast-food chains and apartment complexes being built, and the traffic congestion that comes with growth and development. On the other hand, some comments suggested more growth and development with a focus on increasing shopping, restaurants, and places to have fun. While many enjoy the social climate of Logan, some feel it is less inclusive for those who do not fit the majority, whether that be religion, sexuality, or race and ethnicity. Quality of life in terms of affordability was a concern. Residents were worried about increased cost of living, affordable housing, and livable wages.  

On This Page