Midvale 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

Midvale 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 Midvale 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 May of 2022, Midvale City advertised the survey via the city website, social media, the City Journal newspaper, and their local Midvale Engagement platform. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 52 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 84.6% complete responses.
  • The adult population of Midvale was estimated at 25,093, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 52 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.21% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 13.58%. Caution should be taken with these findings due to the low response to the survey in Midvale. 

Key Findings

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

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Rating)

  • Safety and Security

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were lower in Midvale than any other study city.

Extractive Industry was seen to have particularly negative influences on wellbeing, while Natural Landscapes were overwhelmingly positive.  

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

Top concerns for the future of Midvale:

  • Water Supply (93% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (85% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (83% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Midvale? 
Good location and positive social climate. 

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

In addition to providing partner cities with the opportunity to take part in surveys, the Utah Wellbeing Project has worked to provide curated resources for community leaders and citizens that aim to improve specific aspects of wellbeing. These Wellbeing Resources can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website, along with other useful tools and information.

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Midvale City, key wellbeing issues include: Safety and Security, 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 Midvale 0.0%
Part Time Residents of Midvale 100.0%
Length of Residency — Range 0 - 65 years
Length of Residency — Average 14.4 years
Length of Residency — Median 9.5 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 40.0%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84047 92.3%
84070 5.8%
Other 1.9%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Midvale. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29, those who are Hispanic/Latino or nonwhite, and those with incomes under $25,000 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below.

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


Demographic Characteristics		 Midvale Wellbeing Survey
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2022
52 Respondents
Age 18-29 8.9% 27.6%
Age 30-39 24.4% 29.5%
Age 40-49 24.4% 14.7%
Age 50-59 17.8% 10.8%
Age 60-69 15.6% 10.4%
Age 70 or over 8.9% 7.0%
Adult Female 77.8% 50.0%
Adult Male 22.2% 50.0%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 0.0% NA
No college degree 40.0% 69.6%
College degree (4-year) 60.0% 30.4%
Median household income NA $62,354
Income under $25,000 4.8% 17.4%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 21.4% 19.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 28.6% 25.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 21.4% 16.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.7% 16.0%
Income $150,000 or over 7.1% 4.7%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 20.0% NA
Other religion 33.3% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 46.7% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.7% 21.5%
White 86.0% 72.7%
Nonwhite 14.0% 27.3%
Married 63.6% 43.6%
Children under 18 in household 36.4% 33.4%
Employed 80.0% 71.3%
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 3.7%
Other 20.0% 25.0%
Own home/Owner occupied 77.3% 44.7%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 22.7% 55.3%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Midvale

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Midvale. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Midvale was 3.94 with 75% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Midvale was 3.24 with 43% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 19% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 25% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Midvale? Data - 1 Very Poor: 6% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 35% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 8% of respondents

Change in Community Wellbeing in Last Year

The COVID-19 Pandemic has dominated the last couple of years. Survey respondents were asked if their community’s wellbeing changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 37% of respondents indicated that community wellbeing declined in that time and 27% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing had improved in that time.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeign Change in Midvale. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Midvale changed in the last year? Data: Declined Substantially 12% of respondents, Declined Slightly 35% of respondents, No change 37% of respondents, Improved slightsly 25% of respondents, Improved substantially 2% of respondents

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Midvale 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, Midvale fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Midvale was statistically significantly lower than Layton, Cottonwood Heights, Millcreek, and Draper in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Midvale was significantly lower than all others in the cluster except Tooele. 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 Midvale

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 Midvale were Mental Health (73%), Education (69%), Physical Health (65%), and Living Standards (62%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (96%), Living Standards (93%), and Physical Health (91%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 74% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 26% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 48% 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 - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 72% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 28% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Midvale. 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 - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% 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 - 28% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 72% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 41% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 59% 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 - 53% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 47% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Midvale

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Midvale. Physical Health, Mental Health, and Living Standards were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Safety and Security fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings. Local Environmental Quality approached this zone as its importance score was near the overall average, but it's rating was below the overall average. 

Scatterplot. Title: Midvale 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: Living Standards, Physical Health, and Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Leisure Time, and Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Social Connections, and Local Environmental Quality. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security.

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 Midvale 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 Midvale

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing         +
vs Under $75,000
  
Wellbeing in Midvale            
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education + 
vs 18-39		          
Leisure Time            
Living Standards + 
vs 40-59		          
Local Environmental Quality       + 
vs Other		 -
vs $100,000- $149,999		  
Mental Health + 
vs 18-39		       +
vs Under $75,000		  -
Physical Health           +
vs Under $75,000		  
Safety & Security       + 
vs Other 		    
Social Connections       - 
vs A/A/NP		    
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities + 
vs 40-59		   + 
      
Education     + 
      
Leisure Time            
Living Standards + 
vs 40-59		          
Local Environmental Quality     + 

 - 
    
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health + 
vs 18-39		          
Safety and Security            
Social Connections             
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Midvale

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Midvale. 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 Midvale, the average score was 2.41. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.48.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Midvale. Subtitle: In Midvale, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 15% of respondents; 2: 35% of respondents; 3: 39% of respondents; 4: 9% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 2% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Midvale. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Midvale as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 22% of respondents; 2: 33% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 13% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 2% of respondents

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. Midvale 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 (76%) and recreating in parks in the city (76%) were the most common activities for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (61%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Midvale. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 61% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 76% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 13% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 76% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 61% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 20% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 46% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 52% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

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

Walking a pet in the city was negatively 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, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided. There was a particularly strong negative perception of extractive industry among Midvale respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Midvale 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, 11% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 24% indicated neither, 74% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 53% indicated neither, 47% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 59% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 24% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 43% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 72% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 0% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 59% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 0% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Midvale survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (72%). On the pace of economic development respondents were more evenly distributed, with 30% indicating it was just right, 26% too slow, and 26% too fast.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Midvale? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 15% of respondents rated just right; 72% of respondents rated too fast; 11% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Midvale. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Midvale? Data – 26% of respondents rated too slow; 30% of respondents rated just right; 26% of respondents rated too fast; 17% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Midvale 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 Midvale

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Midvale. Water Supply, Air Quality, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with at least 85% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Midvale. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Midvale, 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- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 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 Health Care- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 7 respondents who filled in the “other” category. The items mentioned were gangs, public transportation, politics, negative community, overpopulation, water conservation, and drugs. 

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Midvale and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Midvale. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, Most of Midvale residents valued the location, being in the center of everything and having resources nearby. Midvale residents also valued the recreation, safety, social climate (especially the sense of community and their friendly neighbors), and transportation (especially the easy access to the freeway). The additional comments section included comments mostly about the city image and growth and development. The residents would like to see more upkeep of the roads/properties. Midvale residents also commented on retail and business, most wanting more diversity in restaurants/shopping. 
 

On This Page