Santaquin 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

Santaquin 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 Santaquin 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 April of 2022, Santaquin City advertised the survey via social media, the city website, and the city newsletter. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 50 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 80% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Santaquin survey had 241 responses and the 2020 Santaquin survey had 180 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Santaquin was estimated at 7,540, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 50 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.7% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 13.81%. Caution should be used in interpreting this year's findings due to the low level of participation in the survey this year. 

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Santaquin was below average among the 33 study cities, while Community Wellbeing was above average. Overall Personal Wellbeing in Santaquin declined between 2021 and 2022, while Community Wellbeing increased. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Physical Health
  • Leisure Time

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 36% of respondents while community wellbeing declined for 34%.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth in Santaquin was too fast. Respondents were more divided about the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Santaquin were:

  • Affordable Housing (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (67% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (63% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Santaquin? 
Small-town feel and positive social climate, access to nature, and quiet and peacefulness.

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 Santaquin City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Leisure Time, Affordable Housing, Air Quality, and Roads and Transportation. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Santaquin 96.0%
Part Time Residents of Santaquin 4.0%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5- 54 years
Length of Residency — Average 13.2 years
Length of Residency — Median 7.5 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 40.0%

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 Santaquin. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and those with incomes between $75,000 and $99,999 were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 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 Santaquin

Demographic Characteristics Santaquin Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
180 Respondents		 Online 2021
241 Respondents		 Online 2022
50 Respondents
Age 18-29 18.8% 10.4% 16.3% 29.3%
Age 30-39 34.4% 32.8% 34.9% 25.1%
Age 40-49 20.6% 29.2% 20.9% 18.2%
Age 50-59 12.5% 14.6% 16.3% 12.8%
Age 60-69 9.4% 8.9% 4.7% 9.0%
Age 70 or over 4.4% 4.2% 7.0% 5.6%
Adult Female 67.9% 73.4% 74.4% 47.7%
Adult Male 32.1% 26.0% 25.6% 52.3%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 0.0% NA
No college degree 66.9% 62.5% 67.4% 80.4%
College degree (4-year) 33.1% 37.5% 32.6% 19.5%
Median household income NA NA NA $76,071
Income under $25,000 3.2% 4.8% 4.7% 5.2%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 7.7% 11.0% 11.6% 21.1%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 27.6% 21.6% 16.3% 21.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 31.4% 34.2% 34.9% 21.8%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 23.7% 21.6% 25.6% 25.0%
Income $150,000 or over 6.4% 6.8% 7.0% 5.6%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 71.2% 76.6% 67.4% NA
Other religion 9.6% 9.0% 7.0% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 19.2% 14.4% 25.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 2.6% 4.7% 13.4%
White 93.7% 96.7% 97.6% 93.4%
Nonwhite 6.3% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 3.3% 2.4% 6.6%
Married 91.9% 92.2% 79.1% 64.8%
Children under 18 in household 70.4% 71.7% 58.1% 61.6%
Employed 69.4% 68.9% 72.1% 69.5%
Out of work and looking for work 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 2.8%
Other 29.3% 30.0% 27.9% 27.7%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 94.3% 86.0% 85.3%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 5.7% 14.0% 14.7%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Santaquin

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Santaquin. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Santaquin was 3.98 with 76% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Santaquin was 3.72 with 64% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Santaquin. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 22% of respondents; 4: 52% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Santaquin. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Santaquin? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 42% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 22% of respondentsBar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Santaquin. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Santaquin? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 42% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 22% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Santaquin over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score declined between 2020 and 2021, but remained nearly the same between 2021 and 2022. The community wellbeing score declined between 2020 and 2021, but increased between 2021 and 2022. 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 Santaquin. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.11, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.71, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.0, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.59, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.98, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.72

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 36% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 34% 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 24% indicated it had improved. 

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Santaquin. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 4%; Declined slightly: 32%; No change: 30%; Improved slightly: 32%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Santaquin. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Moab changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 10%; Declined slightly: 24%; No change: 42%; Improved slightly: 22%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Santaquin as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Santaquin fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and above average in terms of the community wellbeing score. Santaquin was statistically significantly lower than Highland and Vineyard in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of overall community wellbeing, Santaquin was significantly lower than Hyde Park and Highland. 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 Santaquin

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 Santaquin were Living Standards (75%), Safety and Security (72%), and Mental Health (65%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Living Standards (95%), Safety and Security (95%), and Physical Health (91%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Santaquin. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% 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- 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 61% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 39% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Santaquin. 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 - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 50% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 50% rated as important or very important; Category: Education – 25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 41% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 59% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Santaquin

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Santaquin

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Santaquin residents (irrespective of the COVID-10 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Santaquin, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 4.0, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 3.8; Category: Safety and Security- 2020- 4.0, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 3.8; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.6, Category: Education- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.5; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.4, 2022 3.4; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.7; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.4; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.3, 2022- 3.3, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.25; 2022- 3.15, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.6, 2021- 2.6, 2022- 3.0.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains? 

The COVID-19 Pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health . Improvements were reported in Leisure Time for 20% 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- 58% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 40% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 37% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 63% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 43% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 55% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 18% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 20% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 72% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 16% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 14% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 68% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 11% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 84% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 23% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

 

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

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

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

Community Action and Connection in Santaquin

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Santaquin. 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 Santaquin, the average score was 3.02. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.00.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Santaquin. Subtitle: In Santaquin, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 28% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Santaquin. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Santaquin as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 19% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 14% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents who are female reported lower levels of community connection than those who are male. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection than all other age groups. Respondents who have lived in Santaquin for 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection than those residing in Santaquin for more than 5 years. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

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

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Santaquin. Of the 1 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 9 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 21 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 62% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 12 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 50% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% 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. Santaquin 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 (86%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by recreating in parks in the city (74%) and gardening (67%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Santaquin. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 65% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 86% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 33% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 74% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 67% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 53% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 47% 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 Santaquin respondents, participating in city recreation programs, and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing.

Participating in city recreation programs, gardening, and watching or reading nature-related programs or publications were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

Participating in motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters, participating in city recreation programs, and watching or reading nature-related programs or publications were positively and significantly related to community connection. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, farmland, 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 residential development among Santaquin respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Santaquin 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, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 74% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 48% indicated neither, 52% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 72% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 62% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 12% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 33% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 30% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 44% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 35% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 58% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Santaquin survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (81%). In terms of the pace of economic development respondents were more evenly distributed, with 47% indicating it was too fast, 26% too slow, and 23% just right.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Santaquin. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Santaquin? Data – 0% of respondents rated too slow; 14% of respondents rated just right; 81% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Santaquin. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Santaquin? Data – 26% of respondents rated too slow; 23% of respondents rated just right; 47% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show that perceptions on the current rate of population growth in Santaquin did not change substantially between 2021 and 2022 with the vast majority indicating it's too fast (81% in 2022). Regarding the pace of economic development, the most notable difference was the increase in respondents indicating it is too fast (from 12% in 2020 to 38% in 2021 and 47% in 2022), with a mirror-image decline in those who felt that economic development is just right or too slow. 

Type: Line Title: Santaquin Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 1% rated too slow, 22% rated just right, 72% rated too fast 2021: 0% rated too slow, 20% rated just right, 76% rated too fast 2022: 0% rated too slow, 14% rated just right, 81% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Santaquin Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 58% rated too slow, 25% rated just right, 12% rated too fast 2021: 23% rated too slow, 32% rated just right, 38% rated too fast 2022: 26% rated too slow, 23% rated just right, 47% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Santaquin 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 Santaquin

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Santaquin. Affordable Housing, Roads and Transportation, and Air Quality were the top three concerns with over 65% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Santaquin. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Santaquin, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 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- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 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 Health Care- 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% 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 - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 12 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
No infrastructure for new growth (3) Sidewalk access
Secondary education Car dependency
Zoning Growth rate
HOA taking over communities Keeping livestock
City development Senior services

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Santaquin and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Santaquin. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, many residents of Santaquin valued the physical and social atmosphere of Santaquin. It has beautiful landscape with orchards and open spaces. The small-town feel of Santaquin that brings peace and a friendly community was valued. Residents also valued the location being not too busy or crowded. The additional comments section included concerns about growth and development. Residents hoped to preserve the agricultural land and small-town feel they value as Santaquin continues to develop. The growth and development mainly concerned growing too fast and unsustainably, low quality housing and too much new housing, and overcrowding. Residents would like to see more businesses, recreation and entertainment opportunities, and restaurants added versus more housing. There were traffic and road quality concerns as well, especially with Main Street.

On This Page