Park City 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

Park City is one of 33 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2022. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process. Park City was also part of a pilot study on wellbeing in 2019. 

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 Park City 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, Park City advertised the survey via social media, the city newsletter, weekly media briefs and local media coverage, and email lists. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 390 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 89% complete responses.
  • The adult population of Park City was estimated at 7,099, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 390 survey responses in 2022 represent 5.5% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.82%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Park City was average among the 33 study cities, while Community Wellbeing was below average. Wellbeing, domain ratings, and domain importance varied greatly by demographic characteristics with age and income playing key roles.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Physical Health
  • Connection with Nature
  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Living Standards
  • Leisure Time

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Mental Health

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 41% of respondents and community wellbeing declined for 69% of respondents.

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were higher in Park City than in most other study communities.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development were too fast. 

Extractive Industry was seen to have a particularly negative influence on wellbeing for the majority of respondents, though Natural Landscapes were highly positive.

Top concerns for the future of Park City were:

  • Water Supply (92% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Climate Change (82% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Park City? 
Good location with lots of abundant recreation opportunities, access to nature, positive social climate, high quality of life, and feelings of safety.

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

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

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Park City, key wellbeing issues include: Mental Health, Local Environmental Quality, Water Supply, Air Quality, and Roads and Transportation. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1.1

Full Time Residents of Park City 88.5%
Part Time Residents of Park City 11.5%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 74 years
Length of Residency — Average 17.2 years
Length of Residency — Median 15 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 20.5%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84060 57.7%
84098 39.2%
84068 1.3%
Other 1.8%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Park City. People who have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, own their home, and those with household incomes $150,000 and over were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29, those who are Hispanic/Latino, and those with household incomes under $25,000 were particularly underrepresented.  Not all respondents provided demographic information. 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 Park City

Demographic Characteristics Park City Wellbeing Survey American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2022
390 Respondents
Age 18-29 2.3% 22.4%
Age 30-39 10.7% 16.2%
Age 40-49 15.7% 17.2%
Age 50-59 26.4% 18.4%
Age 60-69 24.3% 14.5%
Age 70 or over 20.6% 11.3%
Adult Female 52.9% 49.7%
Adult Male 46.8% 50.3%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 0.3% NA
No college degree 11.3% 37.8%
College degree (4-year) 88.7% 62.2%
Median household income NA $114,798
Income under $25,000 0.9% 12.5%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 4.7% 10.3%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 5.9% 12.2%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 8.1% 7.6%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 19.0% 18.4%
Income $150,000 or over 61.4% 39.0%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2.4% NA
Other religion 47.0% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 50.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino 2.7% 16.3%
White 94.9% 89.1%
Nonwhite 5.1% 10.9%
Married 73.5% 49.0%
Children under 18 in household 21.2% 25.3%
Employed 63.8% 71.1%
Out of work and looking for work 0.3% 1.2%
Other 35.9% 27.3%
Own home/Owner occupied 87.5% 65.3%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 12.5% 36.7%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Park City

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Park City. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Park City was 4.04 with 78% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Park City was 3.50 with 55% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Park City. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 47% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Park City. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Park City? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 28% of respondents; 4: 40% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 16% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing was higher for those in zipcode 84068 and community wellbeing was higher for those in zipcodes 84060 and Other, but these differences were not statistically significant. 

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 Pandemic has dominated the last couple of years. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or community wellbeing changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 41% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 27% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing had improved in that time. For community wellbeing, 69% of respondents indicated it had declined in the last year and 11% indicated it had improved. 

Graph 4. Personal Wellbeing Change Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Park City. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 9%; Declined slightly: 32%; No change: 32%; Improved slightly: 20%; Improved Substantially: 7%.

Graph 5: Community Wellbeing Change Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Park City. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Park City changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 28%; Declined slightly: 41%; No change: 19%; Improved slightly: 9%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Park City as a Rural Hub/Resort Community (and we have combined these with the Traditional Rural Communities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the Rural city cluster, Park City fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and below average in terms of the community wellbeing score. Park City was statistically significantly higher than Moab, but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Park City was significantly higher than East Carbon and Moab, but significantly lower than Helper. 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 Park City

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 Park City were Physical Health (83%), Connection with Nature (82%), and Safety and Security (81%). The three most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (99%), Physical Health (98%), and Living Standards (95%). 

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Park City. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 19% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 81% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 17% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 83% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Park City. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 1% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 99% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 17% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 43% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 57% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 41% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 59% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Park City

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

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

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Mental Health and Social Connections. Improvements were reported in Physical Health for 28% of respondents and Local Environmental Quality for 25% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Park City. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 71% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 26% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 75% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 24% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 65% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 11% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 51% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 28% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 46% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 49% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 36% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 56% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 60% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 15% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 33% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 30% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 45% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 25% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 76% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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 Park City 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 Park City

  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 Park City  + 
       +
vs Under $75,000-
$99,999		  + 
Connection with Nature + 
         + 
Cultural Opportunities + 
       +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Education + 
vs 40-59		       +
vs Under $75,000		  
Leisure Time + 
     - +
vs Under $75,000-
$99,999		  
Living Standards +
       + 
  
Local Environmental Quality + 
       +
vs Under $75,000-
$99,999		  
Mental Health + 
       +
 +
Physical Health           +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Safety & Security + 
vs 18-39		     -  +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Social Connections + 
       +
vs Under $75,000 		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature -
vs 40-59		 +
 +
      
Cultural Opportunities   +
     +
vs $100,000- $149,999		  
Education   +
        
Leisure Time            
Living Standards         +
vs $100,000- $149,999		  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health +
 +
 
     +
vs Under $75,000 and
$100,000- $149,999		  
Physical Health +
vs 18-39		 +
     +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Safety and Security +
 +     +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Social Connections   +   -
vs Other		 +
vs $100,000- $149,999		   
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Park City

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Park City. 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 Park City, the average score was 3.46. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.23.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Park City. Subtitle: In Park City, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 17% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Park City. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Park City as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 27% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported lower levels of community connection than those from other religions. Respondents age 60+ reported higher perceptions of local action than those age 18-39. Respondents who are female reported higher perceptions of local action than those who are male or gender non-conforming or non-binary. Respondents from the highest income category ($150,000+) reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those with household incomes under $75,000 and between $100,000 and $149,999. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Park City take action?  + 
vs 18-39		  + 
 		     +
vs Under $75,000 and $100,000-
$149,999		  
Do you feel connected to your community?

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

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Park City. Of the 13 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 64 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 80% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 169 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 57% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 107 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. Park City was in the upper half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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

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

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (93%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (92%) and recreating in parks in the city (83%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Park City. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 92% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 93% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 36% 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. 58% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 44% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 63% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 63% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Park City respondents, none of the activities above were significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Gardening was positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

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

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. All types of development and industry were viewed as negative influences to Park City resident's wellbeing. 

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Park City 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, 1% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 72% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 23% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 79% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 77% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 20% indicated neither, 3% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 68% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 4% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Park City survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (91%). On the pace of economic development, 85% indicated it was too fast, 10% just right, and 3% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Park City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Park City? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 6% of respondents rated just right; 91% of respondents rated too fast; 3% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Park City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Park City? Data – 3% of respondents rated too slow; 10% of respondents rated just right; 85% of respondents rated too fast; 2% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Park City 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 Park City

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Park City. Water Supply, Roads and Transportation, Air Quality, and Climate Change were the top three concerns with at least 84% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Park City. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Park City, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 8% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 92% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 80% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 20% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 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 Mental Health Care - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 110 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 (23) Environmental quality (3) Wildlife
Overdevelopment, losing town feel (22) Infrastructure (2) Corporate interests
Overpopulation (8) Cost of living (2) Trails
Outdoor recreation crowding, too much tourism (6) Quality of skiing (2) Vail ski corp
Childcare (4) Lack of leadership (2) Quality of life
State overriding local control (3) Dakota Pacific development Erosion of tourism support 
Politics (3) Alcohol abuse amongst teens Home improvements
Water (3) Olympics Expansion of PCMR
Public transportation (3) Influx of remote workers Elderly housing
Fire risk (3) School district collapse Commercial zoning
Inclusivity and diversity (3) Neighborhood entitlements  

Park City Information and Attendance

Park City chose to add additional questions to the 2022 survey regarding sources of information and city meeting attendance. 

Respondents were asked, "Where do you get your information on Park City Municipal news, meetings, and events?" The most popular ways were Park Record (77%), KPCW (58%), and Town Lift (45%). 

Comments about ways to improve getting information out included the following themes:
  • No improvement needed
  • Use email lists more frequently 
  • Use social media more frequently
  • Use local news outlets like Park Record and KPCW
  • Improve transparency and information about City meeting schedules

240 people responded to the question about how many times they have attended a city council, planning commission, coffee with council, or city project meeting in the last 12 months. Of these respondents, 27% said they had not attended. For the rest, the number of times ranged from once to 40 times. The majority of respondents had attended 1-3 times (54%).

In terms of attendance, 46% attended virtually, 36% both virtually and in person, and 18% in person. 

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Park City and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Park City. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, Park City residents mainly valued the recreation and nature of the city, many commenting on trails/skiing and having easy access to the mountains/outdoors. Park City also valued the social climate, especially being around others who also value recreation. The residents also valued the location to Salt Lake City and the major airport as well as transportation, especially in reference to walkability. The additional comments section included many comments on the growth and development (mostly negative), especially in reference to Vail. Park City residents also commented on their quality of life being affected because of the growth and development. Residents commented on transportation (traffic being a major issue and wanting more bike lanes) and the social climate (many observing a change in the population compared to earlier years). 

On This Page