Price 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

Price 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 Price 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, Price City advertised the survey via email lists, a press release, social media, and on the city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 261 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 84.3% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Price survey had 230 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Price was estimated at 5,948, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 261 survey responses in 2022 represent 4.4% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.93%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Price were below average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing in Price increased between 2021 and 2022, while Community Wellbeing remained nearly the same.

Wellbeing, domain ratings, and domain importance varied by demographic characteristics with age being particularly influential (those age 60+ were higher than other ages on many variables). 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Connection with Nature
  • Safety and Security
  • Local Environmental Quality 
  • Education

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Mental Health
  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards
  • Leisure Time

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Living Standards
  • Leisure Time

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

The majority of respondents felt the Pace of Economic Development in Price was too slow, while respondents were more divided on the Population Growth.

Top concerns for the future of Price were:

  • Opportunities for Youth (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (83% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
What do people value most about Price?

Positive social climate with smaller, rural feel, sense of safety, peace and quiet, abundant recreation, location, and access to nature and natural beauty. 

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 Price City, key wellbeing issues include: Living Standards, Leisure Time, Water Supply, Substance Abuse, and Opportunities for Youth. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Price 97.3%
Part Time Residents of Price 2.7%
Length of Residency — Range 0.25- 72 years
Length of Residency — Average 26.3 years
Length of Residency — Median 24.5 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 17.2%

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 Price. People who are female, age 40-49, have at least a 4-year college degree, have children in the household, are employed, and those with household incomes ranging from $75,000 to $149,999 were particularly overrepresented. People age 70+, who are Hispanic/Latino, 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 Price

Demographic Characteristics Price Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
230 Respondents		 Online 2022
261 Respondents
Age 18-29 20.0% 16.8% 22.4%
Age 30-39 25.3% 22.7% 16.5%
Age 40-49 22.6% 27.3% 17.1%
Age 50-59 13.7% 13.6% 15.6%
Age 60-69 14.2% 14.5% 11.9%
Age 70 or over 4.2% 5.0% 16.5%
Adult Female 69.5% 70.9% 54.0%
Adult Male 30.5% 28.2% 46.0%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.9% NA
No college degree 58.2% 59.1% 83.9%
College degree (4-year) 41.8% 40.9% 16.1%
Median household income NA NA $42,500
Income under $25,000 13.3% 7.8% 32.2%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 19.0% 19.8% 24.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 18.0% 18.9% 19.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 23.8% 19.8% 9.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 18.5% 23.5% 8.9%
Income $150,000 or over 7.4% 10.1% 5.1%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 38.5% 37.0% NA
Other religion 35.8% 35.6% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 25.7% 27.3% NA
Hispanic/Latino 7.4% 6.0% 16.6%
White 96.2% 95.3% 89.4%
Nonwhite 3.8% 4.7% 10.6%
Married 72.5% 74.5% 48.1%
Children under 18 in household 50.0% 50.2% 34.2%
Employed 73.2% 73.1% 52.9%
Out of work and looking for work 1.1% 1.8% 4.2%
Other 25.7% 25.1% 42.7%
Own home/Owner occupied 73.2% 74.1% 64.1%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 26.8% 25.9% 35.9%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Price

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Price. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Price was 3.83 with 71% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Price was 3.15 with 35% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Price. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 22% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Price. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Price? Data - 1 Very Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 42% of respondents; 4: 29% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 6% of respondents

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

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Price. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.79, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.17, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.83, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.15

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Price 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, Price fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Price 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, Price was significantly lower than Helper, Bluff, Beaver, Ephraim, and Nephi. 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 Price

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 Price were Connection with Nature (61%), Safety and Security (58%), and Local Environmental Quality (56%). The three most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (96%), Safety and Security (93%), and Living Standards (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Price. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 60% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 40% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 71% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 29% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Price. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 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 - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% 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 - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 32% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 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 - 38% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 62% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Price

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Price

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Price residents. The number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Price, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.35; Category: Safety and Security- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.5; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 3.65, Category: Education- 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.4; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.2; 2022 3.4; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.3, 2022- 3.4; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.4; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.2, 2022- 3.3, Category: Social Connections- 2021- 3.0; 2022- 3.1, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.6, 2022- 2.9.

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 Price 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 Price

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

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

Community Action and Connection in Price

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Price. 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 Price, the average score was 3.00. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.93.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Price. Subtitle: In Price, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 22% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Price. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Price as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 22% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection than those from other religions. Respondents who are female reported higher perceptions of local action than those who are male or gender non-conforming or non-binary. Respondents age 60+ reported higher perceptions of local action than those age 18-39. 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 Price take action?  + 
vs 18-39		  + 
        
Do you feel connected to your community?

     + 
vs Other		    

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Price. Of the 20 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 44 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 89% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 115 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 63% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 49 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 59% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% 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. Price 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 (81%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by recreating in parks in the city (72%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (72%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Price. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 72% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 81% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 60% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 72% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 67% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 39% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 48% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 55% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Price respondents, participating in motorized and non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, gardening, and watching or reading nature-related programs or publications were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood and watching or reading nature-related programs or publications were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing.

Recreating in city parks and gardening were 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, rivers and streams, lakes, and trails were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Price Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 25% indicated neither, 72% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 66% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 20% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 50% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 13% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 49% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 17% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 13% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

In terms of the rate of population growth, respondents in Price were fairly evenly distributed, with 33% indicating it was just right, 30% too fast, and 24% too slow. On the pace of economic development, the majority of respondents indicated it was too slow (71%).

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Price. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Price? Data – 24% of respondents rated too slow; 33% of respondents rated just right; 30% of respondents rated too fast; 13% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Price. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Price? Data – 71% of respondents rated too slow; 18% of respondents rated just right; 2% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show the change in perceptions in the current rate of population growth and pace of economic development from 2021 to 2022. The percentage indicating that population growth is too fast increased from 9% to 30% while the percentages for too slow and just right declined. Perceptions on the pace of economic development stayed about the same, with the majority indicating it's too slow. 

graph

graph

The graphs below show how Price 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 Price

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Price. Opportunities for Youth, Water Supply, Substance Abuse, and Affordable Housing were the top four concerns with at least 80% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Price. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Price, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 46 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Fix the roads (7) Politics (2) City image
Government (4) Bullying Too much redistribution of wealth
Access to cultural events (3) Water Education for autistic students
Noise (2) Overreach Physical activity
Infrastructure to support growth (2) Taxes Rec center
Quality of life (2) Church lawns Community involvement
Sewer (2) Wildfire  
Public transportation (2) Fairness  

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Price and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, many residents of Price valued the positive social climate and the smaller, uncrowded, rural feel of the town. Many residents valued the general sense of safety, the peaceful and quiet atmosphere, and the centrally located placement of the city. In addition, many also valued the abundant recreational and nature-related opportunities offered in Price. In the additional comments section, many residents indicated concerns over substance abuse issues, many wanting more access to mental healthcare and opportunities for positive recreation for youth to avoid drug use. Many residents also commented on the poor city image and amenities, wanting yards and main street to be cleaned up and more retail opportunities. Many comments also detailed issues related to unaffordable housing and an overall poor job market, with many stressing that roads and infrastructure need considerable improvements.

On This Page