South Weber Wellbeing Survey Findings 2023

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information
Dr. Courtney Flint
courtney.flint@usu.edu
435-797-8635

Summary

South Weber City is one of two cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2023. 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 2023 South Weber 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 January of 2023, South Weber City advertised the survey via social media, the city website, and email lists. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 299 viable surveys were recorded in this 2023 survey effort with 89.2% complete responses.
  • The adult population of South Weber was estimated at 5,431, based on the 2017-2021 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 299 survey responses in 2023 represent 5.5% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.51%.

Key Findings

Highest Rated Wellbeing Categories:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Categories:

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

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

  • Local Environmental Quality 

Many indicated Population Growth Rate was too fast, while feelings on the Pace of Economic Development were more divided. 

Top concerns for the future of South Weber were:

  • Air Quality (83% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (67% Moderate or Major Concern)
What do people value most about South Weber?
Positive social climate, small town feel, peace and quiet, and the great 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 Weber City, key wellbeing issues include: Air Quality, Water Supply, Local Environmental Quality, and Public Safety. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of South Weber 98.3%
Part Time Residents of South Weber 1.7%
Length of Residency — Range  77 years
Length of Residency — Average  18.56 years
Length of Residency — Median  15 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 22.8%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2017-2021 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2023 survey respondents were not fully representative of South Weber. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, and are married were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those who are employed were particularly underrepresented. 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 Weber


Demographic Characteristics		 South Weber Wellbeing Survey
American Community Survey
2017-2021 Estimates
Online 2023 
299 Respondents 
Age 18-29 4.2% 21.8%
Age 30-39 16.7% 13.9%
Age 40-49 22.4% 24.2%
Age 50-59 21.3% 17.6%
Age 60-69 20.9% 13.5%
Age 70 or over 14.4% 9.0%
Adult Female 59.3% 49.0%
Adult Male 39.9% 51.0%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 0.8% NA
No college degree 34.9% 59.1%
College degree (4-year) 65.1% 40.9%
Median household income NA $120,365
Income under $25,000 0.0% 4.5%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 3.2% 8.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 12.1% 10.4%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 16.9% 15.3%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 38.7% 29.6%
Income $150,000 or over 29.0% 32.1%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 64.8% NA
Other religion 12.1% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 23.0% NA
Hispanic/Latino 3.2% 8.4%
White 93.7% 92.5%
Nonwhite 6.3% 7.6%
Married 76.2% 65.7%
Children under 18 in household 44.0% 43.9%
Employed 51.0% 69.5%
Out of work and looking for work 1.0% 2.5%
Other 48.0% 30.5%
Own home/Owner occupied 95.8% 92.5%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 4.2% 7.5%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in South Weber

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in South Weber. 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 Weber was 4.16 with 88% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in South Weber was 3.72 with 64% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in South Weber. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 11% of respondents; 4: 57% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in South Weber Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Beaver? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 18% of respondents

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The graphs below compare 2023 personal and community wellbeing results in South Weber with the results from cities that participated in wellbeing surveys in 2022. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies South Weber as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, South Weber fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. 

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; South Weber City: Average Score 4.16; 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; South Weber City: Average Score 3.72; 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 Weber

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 Weber were Safety and Security (86%), and Living Standards (86%). The three most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (99%), Safety and Security (98%), and Physical Health (97%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in South Weber. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 14% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 86% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 20% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 80% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 14% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 86% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 19% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 81% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 73% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 59% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 41% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in South Weber. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 1% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 99% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 28% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 72% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 46% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 54% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for South Weber

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

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

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among South Weber 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 Weber

  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 South Weber         -
vs Under $50,000		  
Connection with Nature +
vs 40-59		          
Cultural Opportunities       +
vs A/A/NRP 		    
Education     + - 
vs Other Religion		   - 
Leisure Time            
Living Standards         + 
vs  $100,000-$149,999		  
Local Environmental Quality    -        
Mental Health       - 
vs Other Religion 		    
Physical Health           +
vs Under $75,000 and $100,000-$149,999		  
Safety & Security       - 
vs Other Religion 		    
Social Connections +
vs 18-39		     +
vs A/A/NRP  		    
  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 A/A/NRP		    
Leisure Time            
Living Standards         + 
vs  $100,000-$149,999		  
Local Environmental Quality +
vs 40-59		     -
vs A/A/NRP		 + 
vs $50,000 - $74,999		  
Mental Health    
       +
Physical Health +

       + 
vs  $75,000-$149,999		  
Safety and Security   +        
Social Connections       +
vs A/A/NRP		     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in South Weber

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in South Weber. 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 Weber, the average score was 3.47. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.22.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in South Weber. Subtitle: In South Weber, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 2% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 36% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 15% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in South Weber. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to South Weber as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

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 Weber take action?       + 
vs A/A/NRP  		    
Do you feel connected to your community?       + 
vs A/A/NRP		 -
vs Under $100,000 		  

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in South Weber. Of the 6 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 29 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 158 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 61% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 80 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 44% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how South Weber compares with Wellbeing Project cities from 2022 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 Weber 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. 

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: South Weber 49% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5;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; South Weber- 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 last 12 months. Gardening (83%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by enjoying birds or wildlife in your yard or neighborhood (81%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (73%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Beaver. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 73% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 81% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 49% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 49% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 83% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 37% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 62% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 49% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For South Weber respondents, participation in non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah and recreating in city parks were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing, while only recreating in city parks was positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

Participation in recreating in city parks, motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, enjoying birds or wildlife in your yard or neighborhood, and city recreation programs were positively and significantly related to community connection. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains and rivers and streams were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. There was a particularly strong negative perception of extractive industry among South Weber respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in South Weber Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 58% 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, 17% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 32% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 30% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 25% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 74% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 49% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 10% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

In South Weber, 61% of respondents indicated that they felt population growth was too fast, followed by 32% indicating it was just right. On the pace of economic development, 40% indicated it was just right, 21% too slow, and 32% too fast. 

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in South Weber. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in South Weber? Data – 3% of respondents rated too slow; 32% of respondents rated just right; 61% of respondents rated too fast; 3% of respondents rated no opinion. 

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in South Weber. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in South Weber? Data – 21% of respondents rated too slow; 40% of respondents rated just right; 32% of respondents rated too fast; 7% of respondents rated no opinion. 

The graphs below show how South Weber compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project from 2022 on these perceptions of population growth and economic development. 

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; City: South Weber – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 61% 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.

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; South Weber – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 32% 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 Weber

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of South Weber. Air Quality and Water Supply were the top two concerns with over 80% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in South Weber. Subtitle: As you look to the future of South Weber, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 54 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses that fall in the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Gravel pits and related issues (truck traffic and noise,
health hazards, dust, pollution) (14)		 City image (2)
Lack of roads leaving the city, exiting subdivision by
elementary school, to Layton (5)		 Highway/freeway expansion
Noise, air force base (4) Social security
Open space (3) Walkability
Sidewalk safety (3) Government
Overdevelopment (3) Lack of code enforcement
Running and biking trails (3) Older infrastructure
Utility costs (2) Racism

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about South Weber and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in South Weber. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of South Weber valued the social climate and small town feel. The peace and quiet as well as the location were also highly valued by residents of South Weber. In the additional comments section many residents brought up the gravel pits and associated issues. Comments about the growth and development of the city were also common. 

On This Page