Sandy 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

Sandy 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 Sandy survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in February of 2022, Sandy City advertised the survey via social media, the city website, marquees, email lists, and the city newsletter. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 809 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 91.2% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Sandy survey had 1,159 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Sandy was estimated at 71,590, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 809 survey responses in 2022 represent 1.1% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 3.43%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Sandy were above average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Sandy declined slightly between 2021 and 2022. 

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

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Education
  • Physical Health
  • Leisure Time
  • Safety and Security

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 31% of respondents community wellbeing declined for 34%.

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

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 Sandy were:

  • Water Supply (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (75% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (71% Moderate or Major Concern)
High density housing and over-development were an common additional concern found in respondent open comments.

What do people value most about Sandy? 
The location, safety, good social climate, and access to nature. 

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 Sandy City, key wellbeing issues include: Water Supply, Air Quality, and Public Safety. 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 Sandy 99.6%
Part Time Residents of Sandy 0.4%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5- 70 years
Length of Residency — Average 23.9 years
Length of Residency — Median 22 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 6.9%

map

Table 1.2

Council District 1 16.2%
Council District 2 24.9%
Council District 3 32.6%
Council District 4 26.3%

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 Sandy. People who have at least a 4-year college degree, age 60-69, are married, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and 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 Sandy

Demographic Characteristics Sandy Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
1159 Respondents		 Online 2022
809 Respondents
Age 18-29 2.3% 1.4% 21.3%
Age 30-39 13.4% 10.5% 18.9%
Age 40-49 21.9% 19.0% 16.3%
Age 50-59 21.3% 20.4% 16.0%
Age 60-69 24.3% 27.3% 15.6%
Age 70 or over 16.7% 21.5% 11.9%
Adult Female 57.6% 58.8% 50.6%
Adult Male 41.9% 40.5% 49.4%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.7% NA
No college degree 32.1% 32.6% 57.0%
College degree (4-year) 67.9% 67.4% 43.0%
Median household income NA NA $95,715
Income under $25,000 1.5% 0.7% 8.5%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 7.5% 7.5% 12.3%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 13.8% 13.7% 15.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 18.7% 18.3% 16.8%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 29.0% 30.7% 21.0%
Income $150,000 or over 29.4% 29.0% 25.9%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 43.0% 46.5% NA
Other religion 27.5% 23.1% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 29.6% 30.4% NA
Hispanic/Latino 2.5% 4.0% 10.3%
White 95.0% 94.9% 87.4%
Nonwhite 5.0% 5.1% 12.6%
Married 82.0% 83.7% 57.6%
Children under 18 in household 35.2% 32.6% 36.1%
Employed 61.5% 58.0% 67.5%
Out of work and looking for work 1.1% 0.1% 1.7%
Other 37.4% 41.9% 30.8%
Own home/Owner occupied 97.1% 97.4% 78.5%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 2.9% 2.6% 21.5%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Sandy

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Sandy. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Sandy was 4.07 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Sandy was 3.79 with 68% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Sandy. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 32% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Sandy. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Sandy? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 25% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing was higher for those in District 3, but these differences were not statistically significant. Community wellbeing was also higher for those in District 3, however, this difference was only statistically significant when compared to District 1. 

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

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Sandy. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.13, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.80, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.07, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.79

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 31% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 26% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing had improved in that time. For community wellbeing, 34% of respondents indicated it had declined in the last year and 14% indicated it had improved. 

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Sandy. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 6%; Declined slightly: 25%; No change: 43%; Improved slightly: 22%; Improved Substantially: 4%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Sandy. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Moab changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; D

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the more urban city cluster, Sandy fell just above the cluster average in terms of the overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Sandy was only statistically significantly higher than Tooele in terms of overall personal wellbeing and not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, Sandy was significantly higher than Tooele, Midvale, Logan, and West Jordan. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.27; Millcreek: Average Score 4.24; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 4.19; Layton: Average Score 4.16; Bountiful: Average Score 4.09; Sandy: Average Score 4.07; South Jordan: Average Score 4.06; West Jordan: Average Score 4.03; Midvale: Average Score 3.94; Logan: Average Score 3.89; Tooele: Average Score 3.76. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Vineyard: Average Score 4.31; Highland: Average Score 4.28; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.25; Nibley: Average Score 4.20; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.15; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Lehi: Average Score 4.10; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.02; Santaquin: Average Score 3.98; Herriman: Average Score 3.87. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Beaver: Average Score 4.18; Helper: Average Score 4.15; Nephi: Average Score 4.11; Tremonton: Average Score 4.10; Park City: Average Score 4.04; Bluff: Average Score 3.96; Ephraim: Average Score 3.89; Delta: Average Score 3.88; Blanding: Average Score: 3.85; Price: Average Score 3.83; East Carbon: Average Score: 3.73; Moab: Average Score: 3.50. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.03; South Jordan: Average Score 4.02; Bountiful: Average Score 3.84; Sandy: Average Score 3.79; Millcreek: Average Score 3.79; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 3.72; Layton: Average Score 3.71; West Jordan: Average Score 3.55; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Midvale: Average Score 3.24; Tooele: Average Score 3.15. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Highland: Average Score 4.15; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.05; North Logan: Average Score 3.99; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.98; Nibley: Average Score 3.87; Vineyard: Average Score 3.84; Santaquin: Average Score 3.72; Lehi: Average Score 3.61; Herriman: Average Score 3.49; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Helper: Average Score 4.09; Bluff: Average Score 3.84; Beaver: Average Score 3.82; Ephraim: Average Score 3.75; Nephi: Average Score 3.62; Park City: Average Score 3.50; Delta: Average Score 3.44; Blanding: Average Score 3.44; Tremonton: Average Score: 3.32; Price: Average Score 3.15; East Carbon: Average Score: 2.98; Moab: Average Score: 2.84. 

Wellbeing Domains in Sandy

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 highest rated wellbeing domain for respondents in Sandy was Living Standards (83%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Physical Health (96%), Safety and Security (95%), and Living Standards (92%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Sandy. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 17% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 83% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% 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 - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Sandy. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 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 - 31% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 30% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 49% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 51% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Sandy

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Sandy. Mental Health, Physical Health, and Living Standards were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No domains fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings. However, Local Environmental Quality and Physical Health approached this zone. 

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Sandy

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Sandy residents (irrespective of the COVID-10 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time. There was considerable increase in ratings for education, social connections, and cultural opportunities in the last year. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Sandy, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 4.1, 2022- 4.1; Category: Safety and Security- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 3.8; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 3.8, Category: Education- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.9; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.7; 2022 3.8; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 3.9; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.4; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.8, Category: Social Connections- 2021- 3.2; 2022- 3.6, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.9, 2022- 3.4.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains? 

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Improvements were reported in Connection with Nature for 21% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Sandy. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 65% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 32% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 45% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 50% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 61% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 38% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 33% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 59% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 51% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 19% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 29% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 67% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 7% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 21% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 58% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 21% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 19% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 72% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 29% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 67% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% 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 were found to have varying relationships among Sandy 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 Sandy

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

   - 
vs A/A/NRP		 + 
vs Under
$75,000 and $100,000-$149,999 		  
Physical Health + 
       + 
vs Under
$75,000 and $100,000-$149,999		  
Safety and Security   +    +
vs A/A/NRP		 + 
vs  $100,000- $149,999 		  
Social Connections + 
vs 40-59		 +          
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Sandy

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Sandy. 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 Sandy, the average score was 3.03. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.99.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Sandy. Subtitle: In Sandy, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 42% of respondents; 4: 27% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Sandy. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Sandy as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 26% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those from other religions or those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents age 60+ reported higher perceptions of local action than all other age groups, and higher levels of community connection than those age 40-59. Respondents with a college degree reported lower perceptions of local action than those without a college degree. Respondents in 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. 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 Sandy take action?  + 
   -  + 
  + 
vs Under $75,000 		  
Do you feel connected to your community?  + 
vs 40-59

      + 
  + 
vs Under $75,000 		  

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Sandy. Of the 35 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 91% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 9% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 114 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 87% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 13% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 360 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 72% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 239 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 49% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% 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. Sandy 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 (84%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by gardening (83%) and recreating in parks in the city (76%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Sandy. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 69% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 84% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 29% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 76% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 83% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 25% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 61% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 52% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

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

Participating in city recreation programs and recreating in city parks were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

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

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, city parks, rivers and streams, 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. There was a particularly strong negative perception of extractive industry among Sandy respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Sandy Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 27% indicated neither, 71% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 68% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 40% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 47% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 14% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 61% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 48% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 8% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Sandy survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (66%). On the pace of economic development respondents were more evenly distributed, with 44% indicating it was too fast, and 37% indicating it was just right.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Sandy. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Sandy? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 24% of respondents rated just right; 66% of respondents rated too fast; 8% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Sandy. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Sandy? Data – 7% of respondents rated too slow; 37% of respondents rated just right; 44% of respondents rated too fast; 12% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Sandy have changed between 2021 and 2022. On both the rate of population growth and the pace of economic development, the ratio of those indicating it's too fast to those indicating it's just right nearly flipped between 2021 and 2022, but the change is minimal.  

Type: Line Title: Sandy Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 6% rated too slow, 43% rated just right, 37% rated too fast 2022: 7% rated too slow, 37% rated just right, 44% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Sandy Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 6% rated too slow, 43% rated just right, 37% rated too fast 2022: 7% rated too slow, 37% rated just right, 44% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Sandy 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 Sandy

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Sandy. Water Supply, Air Quality, Public Safety, and Affordable Housing were the top four concerns with at least 75% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Sandy. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Sandy, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% 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- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 184 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
High density housing,
overdevelopment (24)		 Infrastructure, 
utilities (4)		 Illegal immigration
Overpopulation, overcrowding (14) Businesses (4) Wildlife management
Gondola (12) Education (3) Respectful discourse
Government (11) City image (3) Senior care
Traffic (10) Recycling (3) Street lighting
Inflation, cost of living (6) Noise (3) Cultural opportunities
Taxes (5) Fluoride in water (3) Emergency preparedness
Politics (5) Canyon preservation (3) Equality
Diversity (4) Environmental quality (3) Public opinion about living in Sandy
Walkability and bikeability (4) Light pollution (2) Community
Home rentals (4) Trauma informed care (2) Homeless population
Public transportation (4) Pets (2) Fire
Restaurants (4) Corruption  

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Sandy and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Sandy. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Sandy highly valued the location. The social climate was also valued, comments include good neighbors and community. Safety as well as the nature and beauty found in Sandy were also of value. The additional comments section included comments about housing as well as growth and development, many worried about the rapid pace of both. Comments were also made about the government in Sandy, some worried about the current leadership and some excited for the new mayor. There were also comments about the social climate in Sandy, comments ranged from enjoying the current social climate while others wished it was more welcoming.

On This Page