West Jordan Wellbeing Survey Findings 2022

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

West Jordan City is one of 33 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2022. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process.

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

How was the survey conducted?

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

How many people responded?

  • 672 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 80.8% complete responses.
  • The adult population of West Jordan was estimated at 80,803, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 672 survey responses in 2022 represent 0.83% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 3.76%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in West Jordan were below average among the 33 study cities. Wellbeing, domain ratings, and domain importance varied by demographic characteristics, with gender, age, religion, and income being particularly influential. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

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

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 West Jordan were:

  • Water Supply (87% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (87% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (83% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about West Jordan? 
Social climate, close proximity to the places people need to go, safety, affordability. 

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 West Jordan 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 West Jordan 98.8%
Part Time Residents of West Jordan 1.2%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 68 years
Length of Residency — Average 16.6 years
Length of Residency — Median 14 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 21.3%

Table 1.2

Zipcode Percent of Respondents
84084 17.3%
84081 49.0%
84088 32.7%
Other 1.0%

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 West Jordan. People who are female, age 40-49, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, have children under 18 in the household, own their home, and those with incomes between $100,000 and $149,999 were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those who are non-white were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information.  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 West Jordan


Demographic Characteristics		 West Jordan Wellbeing Survey
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2022
672 Respondents
Age 18-29 7.6% 23.7%
Age 30-39 29.2% 22.7%
Age 40-49 35.1% 19.7%
Age 50-59 17.2% 15.6%
Age 60-69 7.6% 11.6%
Age 70 or over 3.5% 6.7%
Adult Female 74.7% 49.7%
Adult Male 24.1% 50.3%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 1.1% NA
No college degree 53.4% 73.6%
College degree (4-year) 46.6% 26.4%
Median household income NA $84,722
Income under $25,000 2.5% 6.1%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 7.1% 16.2%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 11.9% 20.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 20.5% 18.4%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 37.0% 25.0%
Income $150,000 or over 20.9% 13.8%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 50.8% NA
Other religion 15.5% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 33.8% NA
Hispanic/Latino 10.0% 19.5%
White 92.4% 78.6%
Nonwhite 7.6% 21.4%
Married 85.7% 57.0%
Children under 18 in household 60.8% 44.8%
Employed 76.9% 73.1%
Out of work and looking for work 0.4% 2.8%
Other 22.8% 24.0%
Own home/Owner occupied 92.6% 76.8%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 7.4% 23.2%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in West Jordan

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in West Jordan. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in West Jordan was 4.03 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in West Jordan was 3.55 with 54% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in West Jordan. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 55% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 26% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in West Jordan. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in West Jordan? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 42% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 13% of respondents

Overall personal wellbeing was higher for those in zipcodes 84081 and 84084, and community wellbeing was higher for those in zipcodes 84084 and 84088. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the more urban city cluster, West Jordan fell below the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. West Jordan was statistically significantly higher than Tooele, but significantly lower than Draper in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, West Jordan was significantly lower than all others in the cluster except Logan, Layton, and Cottonwood Heights, but significantly higher than Tooele and Midvale. 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 West Jordan

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing in each area. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top rated wellbeing domain for respondents in West Jordan was Living Standards (72%). The three most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (97%), and Living Standards (95%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in West Jordan. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 62% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 38% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 69% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 31% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in West Jordan. 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 - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 35% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% rated as important or very important; Category: Education – 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 50% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 50% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for West Jordan

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from West Jordan. Living Standards, Mental Health, Education, Safety and Security, 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, Local Environmental Quality approached this zone. 

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

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 West Jordan respondents as shown in the table below based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data. The +/- sign indicates whether the wellbeing score in the specific demographic group was significantly higher or lower than the reference group in each demographic variable (p<.05). 

Table 3
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in West Jordan

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

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

Community Action and Connection in West Jordan

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in West Jordan. Both questions were scored on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5). When asked about the degree to which people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities in West Jordan, the average score was 2.81. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.72.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in West Jordan. Subtitle: In West Jordan, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 11% of respondents; 2: 29% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 16% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 3% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in West Jordan. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to West Jordan as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents; 3: 45% of respondents; 4: 17% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, and higher perceptions of local action than those from other religions or those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those age 40-59. Respondents with a college degree reported lower perceptions of local action than those without a college degree. Respondents who have lived in West Jordan for 5 years or less reported lower levels of community connection than those residing in West Jordan for over 5 years. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

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

     + 
vs A/A/NRP		   -

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

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in West Jordan. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to West Jordan as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents; 3: 45% of respondents; 4: 17% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 4% of respondents Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in West Jordan. Of the 17 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 96 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 1327 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 149 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. West Jordan was in the bottom three 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. Gardening (78%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (75%) and recreating in parks in the city (73%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in West Jordan. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 65% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 75% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 34% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 73% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 78% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 34% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 53% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 59% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

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

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

Participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, and walking, jogging, biking, or other use of city trails 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, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks 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 West Jordan Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 4% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 59% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 30% indicated neither, 67% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 35% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 29% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 27% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 9% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 46% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 12% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of West Jordan survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (74%), followed by 17% who felt it was just right. On the pace of economic development, respondents were more evenly divided, with 34% indicating it was just right, 33% too fast, and 22% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in West Jordan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in West Jordan? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 17% of respondents rated just right; 74% of respondents rated too fast; 8% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in West Jordan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in West Jordan? Data – 22% of respondents rated too slow; 34% of respondents rated just right; 33% of respondents rated too fast; 11% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how West Jordan compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development in 2022. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Graph 23: Population Growth Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Logan – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Draper – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 56% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 51% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek - 1% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 66% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast;City: Highland – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 82% of respondents rated too fast;City: Tremonton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 60% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 40% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast.  Graph 24: Economic Development Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 41% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Jordan – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 34% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 22% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 49% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: Highland – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 29% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 77% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tremonton – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 45% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 31% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 30% of respondents rated too slow, 18% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 61% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 67% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in West Jordan

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of West Jordan. Water Supply, Air Quality, Affordable Housing, and Roads and Transportation were the top three concerns with at least 83% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in West Jordan. Subtitle: As you look to the future of West Jordan, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 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 Quality Food- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Category: Climate Change- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 117 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Traffic (11) Neighborhood deterioration (2) Equestrian lifestyle
Education and school crowding (10) Social, bars, activities for nonreligious people (2) Unfinished projects, Big Bend
Need for west-side rec center (6) Politics (2) Gangs
Overcrowding, overpopulation (6) Utilities (2) Fiscal waste
Overdevelopment (5) Drug trafficking (2) Community
High density housing (5) Walkability (2) Government
Road work, need for better roads (5) Environmental quality (2) Taxes
Trails and parks (4) City image (2) Housing
Safe school zones and school safety (3) Cemeteries  Cultural opportunities
Noise pollution (3) Businesses Guns
Restaurants (3) Gentrification Skate park
Water rates (3) Animal overpasses Wildlife
Police (3) Liquor store Pets
Water conservation, water quality (3) Cultural arts Christmas lights on Redwood Road during holidays

Additional West Jordan Questions

West Jordan City chose to add additional questions to the 2022 survey related to community involvement and communication. The graphs below detail the findings. 

West Jordan City Events

Regarding events offered by West Jordan City, the majority (63%) indicate the number of events is just right, followed by 35% who indicated there were not enough, and 2% who said there were too many.

Respondents were asked, “Which West Jordan City events have you heard of or attended?”
Attendance was highest for Western Stampede (47%), Food Trucks (44%), Demolition Derby (26%), Movies in the Park (25%). Few people had attended the Small and Tall Ball (4%) or the Monster Truck Rally (11%).

The events that few people had heard of were the Small and Tall Ball (57%), Holiday/Santa Event (36%), Memorial Day Event (32%), Veterans Day Event (30%), and the Monster Truck Rally (27%).

Contact Preference and Expressing Opinion

Respondents were asked to rank order a number of options to answer the question, "What is the best way for the city to contact you regarding events, construction, and general information?" The resulting rank preference was:

  1. Social Media
  2. Email
  3. Text Message
  4. Website
  5. Traditional Mail
  6. West Jordan Journal

What are the preferred ways to express opinions to West Jordan City?

  1. Email (47%)
  2. Social Media (32%)
  3. Neighborhood Meeting (9%)
  4. City Council Meeting (6%)
  5. Hotline (4%)
  6. Other (2%) included online survey and mailings 

Involvement with West Jordan City

Respondents did not feel they are very involved with the City of West Jordan.

Type: Bar Title: Involvement with the City Subtitle: How would you rate your level of involvement with the city of West Jordan from 1-5, 1 being uninvolved, 5 being very involved? Data: 17% rated 1. 33% rated 2. 37% rated 3. 9% rated 4. 3% rated 5.

What prevents residents from being more involved in the City of West Jordan?

  1. Time (57%)
  2. Knowledge (38%)
  3. Interest (18%)

City Communication

How is West Jordan City’s communication with residents?

Type: Bar. Title: City Communication. Subtitle: How would you rate West Jordan City’s communication with residents? Data: 14% rated poor. 49% rated fair. 35% rated good. 2% rated excellent.

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about West Jordan and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in West Jordan. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of West Jordan highly valued the location, citing the close proximity to things, as well as the social climate, commenting on the community. Safety was also valued by many people in West Jordan. Comments about valuing the economy were made, specifically about the affordability in West Jordan. The additional comments section included comments about the transportation in West Jordan, wanting roads to be updated. Growth and development as well as recreation were commented on, wanting growth limited and more opportunities for recreation. West Jordan’s city government was also brought up. 

On This Page