Vineyard 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

Vineyard 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 Vineyard survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

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

How many people responded?

  • 418 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 79.7% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Vineyard survey had 379 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Vineyard was estimated at 5,711, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 418 survey responses in 2022 represent 7.3% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.61%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Vineyard were above average among the 33 study communities. Overall Personal Wellbeing increased in Vineyard between 2021 and 2022, while community wellbeing declined. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

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

Top concerns for the future of Vineyard were:

  • Roads and Transportation (81% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (68% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Vineyard? 
Good location, positive social climate, access to nature and natural beauty, open space, abundant recreation, good transportation, and feelings of safety.

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 Vineyard City, key wellbeing issues include: Water Supply, Air Quality, and Roads and Transportation. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1.1

Full Time Residents of Vineyard 97.4%
Part Time Residents of Vineyard 2.6%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 80 years
Length of Residency — Average 4.1 years
Length of Residency — Median 4 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 78.0%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84058 0.7%
84059 97.8%
Other 1.5%

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 Vineyard. People who are age 30-39, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, have children in household, own their home, and those with household incomes $150,000 or over were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those with household incomes between $25,000 and $74,999 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 Vineyard

Demographic Characteristics Vineyard Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2021
379 Respondents		 Online 2022
418 Respondents
Age 18-29 19.5% 15.8% 55.0%
Age 30-39 43.3% 43.0% 26.1%
Age 40-49 18.9% 19.1% 11.4%
Age 50-59 6.8% 7.2% 4.9%
Age 60-69 6.8% 8.1% 1.4%
Age 70 or over 4.6% 6.9% 1.2%
Adult Female 54.8% 50.6% 45.2%
Adult Male 45.2% 48.8% 54.8%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA 0.6% NA
No college degree 22.8% 26.5% 54.9%
College degree (4-year) 77.2% 73.5% 45.1%
Median household income NA NA $80,868
Income under $25,000 1.4% 2.1% 5.8%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 6.6% 4.9% 20.4%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 13.2% 10.1% 20.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 23.1% 15.3% 20.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 19.7% 31.8% 18.2%
Income $150,000 or over 26.1% 35.8% 14.9%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 80.5% 80.2% NA
Other religion 7.1% 4.3% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 12.5% 15.5% NA
Hispanic/Latino 9.2% 8.2% 10.2%
White 89.0% 90.9% 81.5%
Nonwhite 11.0% 9.1% 18.5%
Married 83.7% 86.1% 57.4%
Children under 18 in household 62.3% 64.9% 47.5%
Employed 72.9% 72.3% 78.2%
Out of work and looking for work 1.0% 0.9% 1.4%
Other 26.1% 26.8% 20.5%
Own home/Owner occupied 94.8% 92.5% 45.0%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 5.2% 7.5% 55.0%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Vineyard

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Vineyard. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Vineyard was 4.31 with 92% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Vineyard was 3.84 with 70% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Vineyard. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Vineyard. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Vineyard? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 22% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Vineyard over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score increased between 2021 and 2022 and the community wellbeing score declined. 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 Vineyard. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.17, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.95, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.31, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.84

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Vineyard fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Vineyard was statistically significantly higher than Saratoga Springs, Santaquin, and Herriman in terms of overall personal wellbeing but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, Vineyard was statistically significantly higher than Saratoga Springs and Herriman, 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 Vineyard

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 four highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Vineyard were Living Standards (91%), Safety and Security (86%), Mental Health (81%), and Education (81%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (98%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Vineyard. 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 - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 19% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 81% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 91% 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 - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Vineyard. 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 - 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 - 29% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 30% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Education – 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 44% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 56% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Vineyard

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Vineyard

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Vineyard residents. The number of respondents changed over time. There was considerable increase in some domains in the last year, particularly social connections and cultural opportunities. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Vineyard, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2021- 4.3, 2022- 4.3; Category: Safety and Security- 2021- 4.1, 2022- 4.2; Category: Connection with Nature- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.7, Category: Education- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.1; Category: Physical Health: 2021- 3.7; 2022 4.0; Category: Mental Health- 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.0; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.5; Category: Leisure Time- 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.8, Category: Social Connections- 2021- 3.3; 2022- 3.8, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2021- 2.7, 2022- 3.2.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

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

  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 and $100,000- $149,999		  
Wellbeing in Vineyard   +        
Connection with Nature +       +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 18-39		     +
vs A/A/NRP		    
Education     +
      
Leisure Time   +
     +
vs Under $75,000		  
Living Standards   +
     +
  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health +
vs 18-39		     +
vs A/A/NRP
-
vs Other
    
Physical Health              
Safety & Security -
vs 18-39 		       +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Social Connections +
vs 40-59		 +
     +  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities   +
   -
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs $75,000- $99,999		  
Education - +        
Leisure Time            
Living Standards         +
vs $100,000-
$149,999		  
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health     +   -
vs Under $75,000		  
Safety and Security   +
        
Social Connections   +
     +
vs $75,000-
$149,999		   
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Vineyard

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Vineyard. 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 Vineyard, the average score was 3.26. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.15.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Vineyard. Subtitle: In Vineyard, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 11% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Vineyard. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Vineyard as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 6% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 29% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection than those age 40-59. Respondents in the highest income category reported higher levels of community connection than those with household incomes under $75,000. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Vineyard take action?       +
vs A/A/NRP		    
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 40-59		       +
vs Under $75,000		  

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Vineyard. Of the 3 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 23 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3,782% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 190 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 144 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 53% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% 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. Vineyard was in the upper half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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

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

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Recreating in parks in the city (85%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (73%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (72%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Vineyard. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 72% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 73% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 37% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 85% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 63% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 42% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 45% 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 Vineyard respondents, none of the activities above were significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Participating in motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters was negatively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

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

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, 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. There was a particularly strong negative perception of extractive industry and manufacturing industry among Vineyard respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Vineyard Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 54% 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 - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 62% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 29% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 33% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 22% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 66% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 59% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Vineyard survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (79%), followed by 16% indicating it was just right. On the pace of economic development, respondents were more evenly distributed, with 34% indicating it was too slow, 32% just right, and 27% too fast.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Vineyard. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Vineyard? Data – 0% of respondents rated too slow; 16% of respondents rated just right; 79% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Vineyard. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Vineyard? Data – 34% of respondents rated too slow; 32% of respondents rated just right; 27% of respondents rated too fast; 7% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Vineyard have changed between 2021 and 2022. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast (from 68% to 79%), with a corresponding decline in those who felt that population growth is just right (25% to 16%). On the current pace of economic development, there were slight changes in each perception group to a more even split across the three response options (too fast, too slow, and just right). 

Type: Line Title: Vineyard Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 0% rated too slow, 25% rated just right, 68% rated too fast 2022: 0% rated too slow, 16% rated just right, 79% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Vineyard Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2021: 41% rated too slow, 33% rated just right, 20% rated too fast 2022: 34% rated too slow, 32% rated just right, 27% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Vineyard 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 Vineyard

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Vineyard. Roads and Transportation, Air Quality, and Water Supply were the top three concerns with over 75% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Vineyard. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Vineyard, 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- 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% 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- 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 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- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Category: 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 80 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
High density housing, overdevelopment (13) Public transportation (2) Tennis courts with non-torn net, sand volleyball courts
Overpopulation, overcrowding (11) Education (2) Animal parks
Parking (10) Utilities Renters
Traffic (6) Entitled citizens Noise and light pollution
Lake development (5) Lower speed limits in neighborhoods Government
Availability of grocery stores (4) Community connection Library
Houses falling apart, trashy neighborhoods (3) Homeless services Lake view
Bugs, pests (3) Traffic lights Access to local LDS church buildings
Overdevelopment (2) Lights for crossing at vineyard connector loop Too many dog fences

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Vineyard and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Vineyard. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, many residents valued the location of Vineyard. Residents also highly valued the recreation opportunities of Vineyard. The social climate in Vineyard was also valued by residents, specifically the community and the small town feel. Regarding the additional comments section, residents in Vineyard made many concerned comments about housing as well as growth and development. Many people also made comments about the shopping available in Vineyard, many wanted a grocery store and more restaurants. People also made comments about transportation, ranging from worries about traffic to parking on the streets in Vineyard. 

On This Page