Saratoga Springs 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

Saratoga Springs 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 Saratoga Springs 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, Saratoga Springs City advertised the survey via the city newsletter and social media. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 109 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 78% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Saratoga Springs survey had 157 responses and the 2020 Saratoga Springs survey had 377 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Saratoga Springs was estimated at 16,983, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 109 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.64% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.36%.

Key Findings

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

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

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

Manufacturing and Extractive Industry were seen to have negative influences on wellbeing for the majority of respondents, though Natural Landscapes were highly positive.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast, but there was more division over the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Saratoga Springs were:

  • Roads and Transportation (92% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (79% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Saratoga Springs?
Open space and a positive social climate.

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

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

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

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1.1

Full Time Residents of Saratoga Springs 99.1%
Part Time Residents of Saratoga Springs 0.9%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 22 years
Length of Residency — Average 7 years
Length of Residency — Median 5.5 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 49.5%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Responses
84045 95.4%
84043 2.8%
84005 1.8%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Saratoga Springs. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, own their home, and those with incomes $150,000 or over 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 Saratoga Springs

Demographic Characteristics Saratoga Springs Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
377
Respondents		 Online 2021
157 Respondents		 Online 2022
109 Respondents
Age 18-29 12.7% 15.0% 12.9% 25.5%
Age 30-39 40.9% 38.3% 41.2% 32.3%
Age 40-49 28.8% 24.8% 22.4% 23.2%
Age 50-59 10.2% 10.5% 15.3% 7.5%
Age 60-69 5.0% 6.0% 4.7% 7.3%
Age 70 or over 2.5% 5.3% 3.5% 4.2%
Adult Female 64.8% 64.4% 68.7% 47.5%
Adult Male 35.2% 34.1% 30.1% 52.5%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 1.2% NA
No college degree 41.8% 34.8% 37.6% 54.2%
College degree (4-year) 58.2% 65.2% 62.4% 45.8%
Median household income NA NA NA $101,592
Income under $25,000 1.3% 2.3% 0.0% 4.4%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 4.8% 4.6% 2.4% 11.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 9.6% 16.9% 12.2% 13.8%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 26.4% 28.5% 18.3% 19.8%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 40.4% 30.8% 36.6% 31.7%
Income $150,000 or over 17.5% 17.0% 30.5% 19.3%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 69.8% 82.8% 68.3% NA
Other religion 12.9% 6.3% 13.4% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 17.3% 10.9% 18.3% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 3.1% 3.6% 7.1%
White 88.8% 93.7% 92.9% 90.8%
Nonwhite 11.2% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 6.3% 7.1% 9.2%
Married 92.8% 89.2% 88.0% 70.6%
Children under 18 in household 74.4% 69.7% 65.5% 68.8%
Employed 70.5% 69.9% 63.5% 68.1%
Out of work and looking for work 0.6% 0.0% 1.2% 1.8%
Other 28.9% 30.1% 35.3% 30.2%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 90.9% 95.3% 83.4%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 9.1% 4.7% 16.6%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Saratoga Springs. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Saratoga Springs was 4.02 with 82% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Saratoga Springs was 3.47 with 58% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 14% of respondents; 4: 59% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Saratoga Springs? Data - 1 Very Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 47% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 11% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing was higher for those in zipcode 84005 and community wellbeing was higher for those in zipcodes 84005 and 84043. However, these differences were not statistically significant. 

Comparing survey data from Saratoga Springs 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 remained nearly the same between 2020 and 2021, but declined 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 Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.14, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.67, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.03, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.66, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.02, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.47

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Saratoga Springs fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Saratoga Springs 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 community wellbeing, Saratoga Springs was significantly lower than all others besides Herriman, Lehi, and Santaquin. 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 Saratoga Springs

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 Saratoga Springs were Living Standards (82%), Safety and Security (79%), and Education (67%). The two most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%) and Safety and Security (96%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 58% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 42% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 72% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 28% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 60% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 72% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 28% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% 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 - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 40% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 60% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 31% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Education – 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 58% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 42% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Saratoga Springs

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Saratoga Springs

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

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Saratoga Springs, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 4.1, 2021- 4.0, 2022- 4.1; Category: Safety and Security- 2020- 4.1, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 4.0; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.2, 2022- 3.3, Category: Education- 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.8; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.4, 2022 3.6; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.6; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.2, 2022- 2.9; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.3, 2022- 3.5, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.2; 2022- 3.4, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.8, 2021- 2.5, 2022- 2.7.

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 Saratoga Springs 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 Saratoga Springs

  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            
Wellbeing in Saratoga Springs + 
vs
40-59 		         + 
Connection with Nature +

          
Cultural Opportunities       + 
vs A/A/NRP 		    
Education     + 
      
Leisure Time            
Living Standards +     + 
   + 
vs Under $75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality +

     + 
vs A/A/NRP 		   +
Mental Health + 
   +
   +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Physical Health       + 
      
Safety & Security + 
vs
40-59 		         + 
Social Connections     + 
 + 
vs A/A/NRP 		 + 
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            
Cultural Opportunities       - 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Education            
Leisure Time            
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality       - 
vs Other		    
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health            
Safety and Security            
Social Connections   + +       
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Saratoga Springs

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Saratoga Springs. 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 Saratoga Springs, the average score was 2.90. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.71.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: In Saratoga Springs, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 20% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Saratoga Springs as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 14% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents; 3: 42% of respondents; 4: 13% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

Respondents from the highest income category ($150,000+) reported 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 Saratoga Springs take action?         +
vs Under $75,000		  
Do you feel connected to your community?

         

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Saratoga Springs. Of the 4 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 12 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 53 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 87% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 13% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 21 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 62% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% 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. Saratoga Springs 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. Recreating in parks in the city (73%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by recreating in parks in the city (69%) and enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (68%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 66% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 69% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 38% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 73% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 68% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 39% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 42% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 57% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Saratoga Springs respondents, recreating in city parks was positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing and community connection. 

None of the activities above were significantly related to community wellbeing. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, lakes, trails, rivers and streams 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 industry among Saratoga Springs respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Saratoga Springs Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 1% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 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, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 55% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 66% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 52% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 28% indicated neither, 20% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 33% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 59% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 1% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 45% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 2% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Saratoga Springs survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (84%). Respondents were more divided on the pace of economic development with 51% indicating it was too fast, followed by 36% indicating it was just right. 

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Saratoga Springs? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 13% of respondents rated just right; 84% of respondents rated too fast; 2% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Saratoga Springs? Data – 9% of respondents rated too slow; 36% of respondents rated just right; 51% of respondents rated too fast; 3% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show that perceptions on the current rate of population growth in Saratoga Springs has not changed substantially in the last few years with the vast majority indicating it's too fast (84% in 2022). Regarding the pace of economic development, the most notable difference was a significant decrease in the number of respondents indicating it is too slow (from 45% to 9%), with a similar increase in those who felt that economic development is too fast (from 14% to 51%). 

Type: Line Title: Saratoga Springs Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 1% rated too slow, 13% rated just right, 80% rated too fast 2021: 2% rated too slow, 17% rated just right, 79% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 13% rated just right, 84% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Saratoga Springs Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 45% rated too slow, 34% rated just right, 14% rated too fast 2021: 33% rated too slow, 34% rated just right, 30% rated too fast 2022: 9% rated too slow, 36% rated just right, 51% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Saratoga Springs 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 Saratoga Springs

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Saratoga Springs. Roads and Transportation, Water Supply, Air Quality, and Affordable Housing were the top four concerns with at least 79% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Saratoga Springs. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Saratoga Springs, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to 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- 66% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 34% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% 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- 76% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 24% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 8% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 92% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 17 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Traffic (6) Commercial food brought into residential
Trail systems (2) Electric power stability
Police Walkability
Overpopulation  Crowding in schools
Concern about non-city social media
in the area		 Islands on the lake

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Saratoga Springs and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Saratoga Springs. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Saratoga Springs valued the social climate, comments include Saratoga Springs being family friendly. Open space as well as the nature and beauty of Saratoga Springs were valued by residents. Location was also valued for many people in Saratoga Springs. The additional comments section included many comments relating to transportation, specifically citing that traffic was an issue. There were also comments about people in Saratoga Springs being worried about growth and development as well as housing, wanting both to be limited. 

On This Page