South Jordan 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

South Jordan 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. South Jordan also participated in a pilot study in 2019. 

We are grateful to all participants who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. Additionally, we are grateful to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and USU Extension for their financial support.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2022 South Jordan survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in March of 2022, South Jordan City advertised the survey via social media and the city newsletter. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 467 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 88.9% complete responses.
  • The adult population of South Jordan was estimated at 49,738, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 467 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.94% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.51%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in South Jordan were above average among the 33 study cities. Wellbeing, domain ratings, and domain importance varied greatly by demographic characteristics with age, gender, religion and income playing key roles.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Categories:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Categories:

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

Red Zone Wellbeing Categories: 
(High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health

Many indicated that the Population Growth Rate was too fast, but respondents were more divided on the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of South Jordan were:

  • Air Quality (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (80% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
What do people value most about South Jordan? 
The social climate, safety, and location.


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 South Jordan City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Mental Health, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Air Quality. 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 South Jordan 98.9%
Part Time Residents of South Jordan 1.1%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 58 years
Length of Residency — Average 11.1 years
Length of Residency — Median 8 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 38.5%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84009 57.2%
84095 41.3%
84065 0.2%
Other 1.3%

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

Demographic Characteristics South Jordan Wellbeing Survey American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2022
467 Respondents
Age 18-29 3.9% 18.4%
Age 30-39 19.6% 22.3%
Age 40-49 22.3% 21.0%
Age 50-59 17.4% 15.8%
Age 60-69 18.9% 12.0%
Age 70 or over 17.9% 10.5%
Adult Female 65.7% 51.3%
Adult Male 34.1% 48.7%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 0.2% NA
No college degree 33.0% 57.1%
College degree (4-year) 67.0% 42.9%
Median household income NA $106,824
Income under $25,000 3.0% 6.5%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 6.1% 7.1%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 10.1% 15.9%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 17.2% 16.0%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 32.1% 25.7%
Income $150,000 or over 31.6% 28.8%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 52.3% NA
Other religion 18.0% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 29.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.2% 8.1%
White 93.0% 87.6%
Nonwhite 7.0% 12.4%
Married 77.5% 63.1%
Children under 18 in household 39.6% 43.8%
Employed 61.3% 68.7%
Out of work and looking for work 0.2% 1.4%
Other 38.5% 29.8%
Own home/Owner occupied 96.1% 83.2%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 3.9% 16.8%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in South Jordan

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in South Jordan. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in South Jordan was 4.06 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in South Jordan was 4.02 with 79% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in South Jordan. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in South Jordan. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in South Jordan? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 52% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 27% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing were higher for those in zipcode 84065, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the more urban city cluster, South Jordan was at the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and above average in terms of the community wellbeing score. South Jordan was only statistically significantly higher than Tooele in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not statistically different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, South Jordan was significantly higher than all other cities in the cluster except Millcreek, Sandy, Bountiful, and Draper. 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 South Jordan

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 two highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in South Jordan were Living Standards (89%), and Safety and Security (87%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Safety and Security (97%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (94%)

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in South Jordan. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 11% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 89% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in South Jordan. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% 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 - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 32% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Education – 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 42% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 58% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for South Jordan

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

Scatterplot. Title: South Jordan Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, Education. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Local Environmental Quality, Connection with Nature, Leisure Time, and Social Connections. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Mental Health and Physical Health.

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 South Jordan 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 South Jordan

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing + 
vs 40-59		     + 
 + 
  
Wellbeing in South Jordan       + 
vs A/A/NRP		 + 
  
Connection with Nature + 
 + 
   + 
vs A/A/NRP 		    
Cultural Opportunities + 
     + 
 + 
  
Education     + 
 + 
 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Leisure Time +
 +
 +
 +
vs Other		 +
  
Living Standards +
vs 40-59		   +
 + +  
Local Environmental Quality       + 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Mental Health +
   +
 + 
vs A/A/NRP		 +
  
Physical Health + 
vs 40-59		         +
vs $75,000-
$149,999		  
Safety & Security +
vs 40-59 		  - +
 + 
 + 
  
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 +          
Education     +   +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Leisure Time       - 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Living Standards +     - 
vs Other		    
Local Environmental Quality +          
Mental Health +
vs 40-59		 +

     +
 		  
Physical Health +
 +
     +
vs Under $75,000		  
Safety and Security +
vs 18-39 		          
Social Connections +
 +
   + 
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		   
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in South Jordan

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in South Jordan. 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 South Jordan, the average score was 3.27. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.25.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in South Jordan. Subtitle: In South Jordan, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 10% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in South Jordan. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to South Jordan as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 5% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 10% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection than those age 40-59 and higher perceptions of local action than those age 18-39. Respondents who are female reported higher perceptions of local action than those who are male or gender non-conforming or non-binary. Respondents in the highest income category reported higher levels of community connection than all other income categories and higher perceptions of local action than those with household incomes under $75,000 and between $100,000 and $149,999. Respondents who have lived in South Jordan for 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection than those residing in South Jordan for over 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 South Jordan take action?  + 
vs 18-39		  + 
   + 
vs A/A/NRP 		 +
vs Under $75,000 and
$100,000- $149,999		  
Do you feel connected to your community?  + 
vs 40-59

     + 
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 South Jordan. Of the 18 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 62 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 81% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 206 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 137 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 42% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. South Jordan was in the upper half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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

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

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Recreating in parks in the city (78%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (76%) and gardening (71%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in South Jordan. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 70% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 76% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 31% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 78% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 71% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 33% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 57% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 53% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For South Jordan respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters and gardening were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing. 

Participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, and gardening were positively and significantly related to community connections.  

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, rivers and streams, city parks, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in South Jordan Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 63% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 32% indicated neither, 67% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 25% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 31% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 30% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 30% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 51% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 45% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 11% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of South Jordan survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (70%). On the pace of economic development respondents were more evenly distributed, with 43% indicating it was too fast, and 41% indicating it was just right.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in South Jordan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in South Jordan? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 22% of respondents rated just right; 70% of respondents rated too fast; 7% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in South Jordan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in South Jordan? Data – 6% of respondents rated too slow; 41% of respondents rated just right; 43% of respondents rated too fast; 10% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how South Jordan 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 South Jordan

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of South Jordan. Air Quality, Water Supply, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with at least 80% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in South Jordan. Subtitle: As you look to the future of South Jordan, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% 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- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 60 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
High density housing (7) Immigrants (2) Taxes
Overpopulation, overcrowding (6) Disability (2) Higher standard of housing
Local businesses (3) Diversity (2) Childcare
Traffic, traffic safety (5) Community events, entertainment (2) Xeriscaping
Government and politics (5) Clean neighborhood Intelligence
Inflation (3) Equity Bicycle infrastructure
Green space, open space (3) Quality of life Public transit
Zoning (3) Public health  

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about South Jordan and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in South Jordan. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of South Jordon highly valued the social climate, commenting on their neighbors and community. Safety and location were also of high importance to South Jordan residents. City image was also brought up by many, specifically how people appreciated and valued the clean appearance and upkeep of South Jordan. Additional comments from South Jordan residents included concerns about housing as well as growth and development, many wished both would be limited. Comments about the social climate in South Jordan were made, some commenting how they love their community while others commenting how they don’t feel welcome. The government in South Jordan was also commented on, bringing up a variety of topics. 

On This Page