Spanish Fork 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

Spanish Fork 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 Spanish Fork 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, Spanish Fork City advertised the survey via email lists, social media, and the city newsletter. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 595 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 90.6% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Spanish Fork survey had 770 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Spanish Fork was estimated at 25,208, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 595 survey responses in 2022 represent 2.4% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 3.97%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Spanish Fork were above average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing increased in Spanish Fork between 2021 and 2022.

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

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Physical Health

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were higher in Spanish Fork than in most other study communities (and Latter-day Saints were higher than those from other religion categories or who those indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference).

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

Top concerns for the future of Spanish Fork were:

  • Affordable Housing (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (72% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Spanish Fork? 
Small-town feel and positive social climate, feelings of safety, good amenities, abundant recreation, well-run government, good location, and access to nature.

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

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

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Spanish Fork City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, 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 Spanish Fork 99.2%
Part Time Residents of Spanish Fork 0.8%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 77 years
Length of Residency — Average 16.9 years
Length of Residency — Median 12 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 26.9%

map

Table 1.2

Map Area 1 0.5%
Map Area 2 2.9%
Map Area 3 17.9%
Map Area 4 19.8%
Map Area 5 14.9%
Map Area 6 41.6%
Map Area 7 2.4%

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 Spanish Fork. People who have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those who are non-white 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 Spanish Fork

Demographic Characteristics Spanish Fork Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
770 Respondents		 Online 2022
595 Respondents
Age 18-29 12.1% 10.2% 28.2%
Age 30-39 33.6% 29.4% 24.1%
Age 40-49 28.0% 24.7% 17.8%
Age 50-59 13.9% 19.9% 13.0%
Age 60-69 8.0% 9.7% 8.3%
Age 70 or over 4.4% 6.1% 8.6%
Adult Female 63.6% 58.8% 49.7%
Adult Male 36.2% 40.8% 50.3%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.4% NA
No college degree 44.1% 40.1% 65.2%
College degree (4-year) 55.8% 59.9% 34.8%
Median household income NA NA $79,846
Income under $25,000 2.5% 1.5% 7.5%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 10.5% 9.3% 16.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 23.3% 17.9% 21.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 25.7% 20.2% 16.8%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 25.9% 36.8% 26.6%
Income $150,000 or over 12.0% 14.3% 10.9%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 81.1% 80.5% NA
Other religion 6.7% 5.9% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 12.2% 13.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.3% 4.5% 11.5%
White 95.7% 95.6% 84.0%
Nonwhite 4.3% 4.4% 16.0%
Married 86.0% 86.1% 63.5%
Children under 18 in household 67.7% 63.4% 55.3%
Employed 69.1% 73.9% 67.7%
Out of work and looking for work 0.8% 0.2% 1.3%
Other 30.1% 25.9% 30.6%
Own home/Owner occupied 85.6% 90.9% 75.3%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 14.4% 9.1% 24.7%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Spanish Fork

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Spanish Fork. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Spanish Fork was 4.15 with 83% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Spanish Fork was 3.98 with 75% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 34% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Spanish Fork? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 27% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing was higher for those living in Area 1, while community wellbeing was higher for those in Area 7. However, these differences were not statistically significant and only 2.9% of respondents lived in Areas 1 and 7. 

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

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.06, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.87, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.15, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.98

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Spanish Fork fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Spanish Fork was only statistically significantly higher than Herriman in terms of overall personal wellbeing and not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, Spanish Fork was significantly higher than Saratoga Springs, Herriman, and Lehi, but significantly lower than Highland. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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

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

Wellbeing Domains in Spanish Fork

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 Spanish Fork were Safety and Security (88%), Living Standards (83%), and Education (77%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Safety and Security (97%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 12% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 88% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 17% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 83% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% 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 - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Spanish Fork. 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 - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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 - 25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 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 - 32% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Education – 13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 44% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 56% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Spanish Fork

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

Scatterplot. Title: Spanish Fork 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, Mental Health. 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: Physical Health.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Spanish Fork

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Spanish Fork residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Ratings improved in nearly all domains in the last year. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Spanish Fork, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 4.1, 2022- 4.2; Category: Safety and Security- 2021- 4.0, 2022- 4.3; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.8, Category: Education- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.0; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.5; 2022 3.7; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.9; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.7, 2022- 3.7; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.8, Category: Social Connections- 2021- 3.3; 2022- 3.8, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.9, 2022- 3.4.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

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

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)
 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing         +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Wellbeing in Spanish Fork       +
 		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Connection with Nature +
vs 18-39		     +
    
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 18-39		     + 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Education     + 
 + 
    
Leisure Time + 
          
Living Standards +
vs 40-59		     +

 +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health +     + 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Physical Health +
vs 40-59		         +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Safety & Security       +
 +  
Social Connections       +

 +
vs Under $75,000 		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature   +
 		        
Cultural Opportunities + 
vs 18-39		 + 
   + 
vs Other		    
Education   + 
 +
      
Leisure Time           + 
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality + 
vs 40-59		     - 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health +
       +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Safety and Security   +   +
vs A/A/NRP		    
Social Connections +
vs 18-39		 +         
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Spanish Fork

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Spanish Fork. 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 Spanish Fork, the average score was 3.45. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.46.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: In Spanish Fork, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 2% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 36% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Spanish Fork as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 3% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 37% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those from other religions or who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents age 60+ reported higher perceptions of local action than those age 18-39. Respondents who have lived in Spanish Fork for 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection than those residing in Spanish Fork 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 Spanish Fork take action? +
vs 18-39		     +
 		    
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 Spanish Fork. Of the 10 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 60% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 81 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 73% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 279 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 52% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 184 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 36% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 64% 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. Spanish Fork was in the upper half on perceived community action and in the top 5 on 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 (88%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by gardening (79%), enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (78%), and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (78%). 

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 78% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 78% 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. 88% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 79% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 51% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 54% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 47% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Spanish Fork respondents, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood was positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Participating in city recreation programs and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

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

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, city parks, 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.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Spanish Fork 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, 5% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% 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 - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 57% 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 - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 37% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 20% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 31% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 29% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 43% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 48% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 35% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 13% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Spanish Fork survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (77%), but they were more evenly distributed on the pace of economic development, with 54% indicating too fast, and 39% indicating just right.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Spanish Fork? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 18% of respondents rated just right; 77% of respondents rated too fast; 4% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Spanish Fork? Data – 3% of respondents rated too slow; 39% of respondents rated just right; 54% of respondents rated too fast; 4% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show that perceptions on the current rate of population growth and pace of economic development in Spanish Fork did not change substantially between 2021 and 2022. The most notable differences were the increase in respondents indicating that the current rates of population growth and economic development are too fast, both up 7% in both cases between 2021 and 2022. 

Type: Line Title: Spanish Fork Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 0% rated too slow, 24% rated just right, 70% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 18% rated just right, 77% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Spanish Fork Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 2% rated too slow, 45% rated just right, 47% rated too fast 2022: 3% rated too slow, 39% rated just right, 54% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Spanish Fork 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 Spanish Fork

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Spanish Fork. Affordable Housing, Water Supply, Roads and Transportation, and Air Quality were the top four concerns with at least 72% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Spanish Fork, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% 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- 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 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- 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% 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 - 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 67 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Overdevelopment (10) Walking paths and trails (2) Need a public swimming pool
Traffic (7) Inflation (2) Religion
Farm land, open land (6) Taxes (2) Care for personal property
High density housing (5) Diversity (2) Schools
Overcrowding, overpopulation (4) Energy Access to the arts
Politics, government (4) Constant dog barking Need ATV trails behind reservoir
Noise pollution (3) Main Street heritage Code enforcement
Preserving the riverbottom (2) Restaurants Public shooting ranges being shut down

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Spanish Fork and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Spanish Fork. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Spanish Fork highly valued the recreation opportunities that can be found within Spanish Fork. The social climate in Spanish Fork was also highly valued, with comments ranging from Spanish Fork having a ‘small town feel’ to the sense of community found there. There were also many people who valued the location of Spanish Fork, enjoying being close to the mountains as well as the freeway. The additional comments section included comments relating to government, specifically commenting on the city council. There were many comments made about growth and development as well as housing, worried about the pace of both. Many residents made comments about recreation, specifically about wanting a pool.

On This Page