Cedar City Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Cedar City is one of 51 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2024. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform general planning processes. Additional analysis is underway and this report may be updated over time.

We are grateful to all those who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. We are grateful to a number of entities for funding: the Utah League of Cities and Towns, USU Extension, USU’s Institute for Land Water and Air, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, and the cities of Alpine, Cedar Hills, Draper, Millcreek, Nephi, North Salt Lake, Ogden, Orem, Pleasant Grove, Providence, Springdale, Tremonton, West Bountiful, and West Valley City.

This report describes findings from the 2024 Cedar City survey and comparative information with other project cities. In April and May 2024, Cedar City advertised the survey for residents largely through social media and newsletters. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 762 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort.
  • The Cedar City 2020 survey had 262 responses.
  • The adult population of Cedar City was estimated at 26,115, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 762 survey responses in 2024 represent 2.9% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 3.5%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of Cedar City 98.2%
Part Time Residents of Cedar City 1.8%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5-77 years
Length of Residency — Average 17.1 years
Length of Residency — Median 11 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 32.3%
ZIP Code Percent
84720 53.1%
84721 46.9%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey. In the graph below, gray bars indicate differences between the American Community Survey estimates and the Utah Wellbeing Project surveys. The wider the gray bars, the larger the differences. Also note that estimates for religious affiliation, adult non-conforming or non-binary gender, disability, and chronic conditions are unavailable from the census data. There can also be a variable margin of error in the American Community Survey estimates, and caution should be used when comparing estimates. Not all respondents provided demographic information. As the graph shows, 2024 survey respondents were not fully representative of Cedar City. People who are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and own their homes were overrepresented while those who are age 18-29, are adult males, do not have a college degree, and are renters were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Cedar City 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 40%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 12%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 17%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 18%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 12%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 21%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 19%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 17%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 14%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 17%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 7%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 24%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 21%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 21%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 22%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 51%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 66%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 49%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 33%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 1%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 64%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 60%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 2%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 34%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 38%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 66%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 46%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 34%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 54%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 43%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 21%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 57%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 79%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 48%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 79%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 36%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 42%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 26%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 7%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 10%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 43%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 25%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 32%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Cedar City

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Cedar City. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Cedar City was 3.94 with 73% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Cedar City was 3.42 with 49% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. ZIP code 84720 had statistically higher overall community wellbeing score when compared to ZIP code 84721; however, no significant difference was found between ZIP codes for overall personal wellbeing scores.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 45% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Cedar City? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 11% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 37% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 11% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Cedar City over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score remained nearly the same between 2020 and 2024. The average community wellbeing score declined between 2020 and 2024. Note that the number of respondents differed between years, there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next, and the low end of the scale was "Poor" in 2024 but "Very Poor" in prior years which may account for differences in scores over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Cedar City. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2020: 3.56; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.42; Personal Wellbeing 2020: 3.99; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 3.94

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns clusters cities and towns into five different categories based on size and growth rates. We utilize these clusters in our analysis. Cedar City is classified as an Established/Mid-sized City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster.

Within the more Urban city cluster, Cedar City was below the average overall personal wellbeing score and below the average overall community wellbeing score.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.81; Ogden Average Score 3.91; Layton Average Score 3.96; West Jordan Average Score 4.01; Orem Average Score 4.05; South Jordan Average Score 4.13; Sandy Average Score 4.18; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.66; Midvale Average Score 3.71; Cedar City Average Score 3.94; South Ogden Average Score 4.04; Pleasant Grove Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.08; Bountiful Average Score 4.13; Draper Average Score 4.22; West Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.29; Alpine Average Score 4.32; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.33; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.97; Saratoga Springs Average Score 4.02; Lehi Average Score 4.05; Clinton Average Score 4.07; Hyrum Average Score 4.10; Spanish Fork Average Score 4.10; Nibley Average Score 4.14; West Haven Average Score 4.17; Vineyard Average Score 4.22; Hyde Park Average Score 4.23; Wellsville Average Score 4.24; Mapleton Average Score 4.26; Providence Average Score 4.27; Ivins Average Score 4.40; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Vernal Average Score 3.60; Price Average Score 3.62; Monticello Average Score 3.71; East Carbon Average Score 3.75; Delta Average Score 3.78; Helper Average Score 3.79; Tremonton Average Score 3.81; Blanding Average Score 3.85; Nephi Average Score 3.92; Beaver Average Score 3.95; Heber Average Score 4.01; La Verkin Average Score 4.13; Bluff Average Score 4.20; Springdale Average Score 4.21; Park City Average Score 4.22; Midway Average Score 4.27; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.42

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.27; West Valley City Average Score 3.38; West Jordan Average Score 3.50; Layton Average Score 3.52; Orem Average Score 3.63; Millcreek Average Score 3.82; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.00; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.18; Midvale Average Score 3.24; Cedar City Average Score 3.42; Pleasant Grove Average Score 3.61; South Ogden Average Score 3.72; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.75; Bountiful Average Score 3.84; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.90; West Bountiful Average Score 4.00; Draper Average Score 4.03; Alpine Average Score 4.15; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.15; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.40; Vineyard Average Score 3.43; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.46; Lehi Average Score 3.50; West Haven Average Score 3.67; Hyrum Average Score 3.76; Clinton Average Score 3.79; Spanish Fork Average Score 3.80; Ivins Average Score 3.91; Providence Average Score 3.91; Nibley Average Score 3.92; Hyde Park Average Score 4.02; Mapleton Average Score 4.02; Wellsville Average Score 4.11; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Price Average Score 2.88; East Carbon Average Score 3.03; Tremonton Average Score 3.09; Monticello Average Score 3.11; Vernal Average Score 3.12; Blanding Average Score 3.31; Heber Average Score 3.42; Delta Average Score 3.43; Nephi Average Score 3.43; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Beaver Average Score 3.59; Springdale Average Score 3.68; Helper Average Score 3.71; Park City Average Score 3.85; Bluff Average Score 3.88; Midway Average Score 4.07; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.28

Wellbeing Domains in Cedar City

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. Survey respondents rated twelve domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. 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 highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Cedar City were Family Life (77%), Connection with Nature (74%), and Safety and Security (71%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (97%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 29% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 71% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Transportation - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Cedar City. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 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: 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: 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: Leisure Time -10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Family Life -11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Education -29% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Transportation -32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -38% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 62% rated as important or very important

Wellbeing Matrix for Cedar City

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

Scatterplot. Title: Cedar City Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: 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 domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Family Life, Leisure Time, Mental Health, and Safety and Security; High rating, lower importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Education, and Local Environmental Quality; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Social Connections, and Transportation; Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Living Standards and Physical Health

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Cedar City

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Cedar City residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Note that the two domains Family Life and Transportation were new categories in the 2024 survey and were not measured in previous years. Mental Health, Leisure Time, and Physical Health improved in their ratings from 2020 to 2024, while the others declined. Connection with Nature and Safety and Security were consistently highly rated in both survey years.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Cedar City. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2020: 4.03; Connection with Nature 2024: 3.99; Cultural Opportunities 2020: 3.56; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 3.40; Education 2020: 3.90; Education 2024: 3.84; Family Life 2024: 4.08; Leisure Time 2020: 3.67; Leisure Time 2024: 3.77; Living Standards 2020: 3.86; Living Standards 2024: 3.61; Local Environmental Quality 2020: 3.98; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.72; Mental Health 2020: 3.69; Mental Health 2024: 3.85; Physical Health 2020: 3.64; Physical Health 2024: 3.67; Safety and Security 2020: 3.95; Safety and Security 2024: 3.87; Social Connections 2020: 3.50; Social Connections 2024: 3.39; Transportation 2024: 3.18

Community Connection in Cedar City

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Cedar City on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.11. ZIP code 84720 had a statistically higher community connection score when compared to ZIP code 84721.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Cedar City. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Cedar City as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 22% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 28% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Cedar City over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score remained nearly the same between 2020 and 2024.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Cedar City. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2020: 3.15; 2024: 3.11

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing as well as mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Cedar City. Data — Of the 51 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 90% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 10% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 151 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 76% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 342 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 68% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 218 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 32% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 68% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Cedar City. Data — Of the 24 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 96% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 4% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 54 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 2, 80% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 151 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 69% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 273 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 63% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 220 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 40% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

The graph below shows how Wellbeing Project cities and towns compare on feelings of community connection based on the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or a 5 on a 5-point scale from “not at all” to “a great deal” connected to their city or town. Cedar City ranked 24 out of the 51 cities that participated.

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 and 5 being a great deal. Data — City: Bluff 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midway 44% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Springdale 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Helper 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ivins 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Park City 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Emigration Canyon 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 58% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Orem 59% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 60% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyrum 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Pleasant Grove 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal 64% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ogden 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Heber 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Clinton 67% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Monticello 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Providence 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Haven 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 70% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 71% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Price 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale 75% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in various activities in the last 12 months. The most popular activities were walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (92%), community events (85%), using trails in or near your city (82%), and recreating in parks in your city (82%).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in Cedar City. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 92% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 85% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 82% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 82% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 73% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 67% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 65% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 47% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 42% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 3% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

Buying food from a farmer's market, participating in city recreation programs, gardening at home, motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, using trails in or near your city, and walking or biking in your neighborhood or city were significantly related to higher ratings of personal wellbeing.

Participating in community events, motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, using trails in or near your city, and walking or biking in your neighborhood or city were significantly related to higher ratings of community wellbeing.

Buying food from a farmer's market, participating in city recreation programs, participating in community events, gardening at home, motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, recreating in parks in your city, using trails in or near your city, and walking or biking in your neighborhood or city were significantly related to higher ratings of community connection.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Cedar City indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (80%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was too slow (43%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Cedar City? Data — Too Slow: 1% of respondents; Just Right: 15% of respondents; Too Fast: 80% of respondents; No Opinion: 4% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Cedar City? Data — Too Slow: 43% of respondents; Just Right: 22% of respondents; Too Fast: 27% of respondents; No Opinion: 8% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Cedar City have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. Perception that population growth was too fast saw a major increase from 2020 to 2024. Perception that the pace of economic development was too fast also saw a significant increase from 2020 to 2024, but the largest group of respondents still indicated they thought it was too slow for both years.

Line Graph. Title: Cedar City Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 1.5% rated too slow, 42.7% rated just right, 45.8% rated too fast; 2024: 1.2% rated too slow, 14.5% rated just right, 80.1% rated too fast

Line Graph. Title: Cedar City Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 44.1% rated too slow, 38.7% rated just right, 9.2% rated too fast; 2024: 42.6% rated too slow, 22.1% rated just right, 27.0% rated too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Cedar City compared to other participating cities and towns in the Established/Mid-sized Cities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Established/Mid-sized Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Cedar City 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 15% indicated that it was just right, 80% indicated that it was too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Logan 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 18% indicated that it was just right, 70% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Draper 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 67% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Pleasant Grove 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 65% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Alpine 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 64% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: South Ogden 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 63% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Midvale 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: Bountiful 9% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% indicated that it was just right, 46% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 42% indicated that it was too fast, and 17% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 52% indicated that it was just right, 32% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Established/Mid-sized Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Draper 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 47% indicated that it was just right, 37% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Logan 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% indicated that it was just right, 34% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: South Ogden 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% indicated that it was just right, 32% indicated that it was too fast, and 20% had no opinion; City: Pleasant Grove 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Cedar City 43% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 27% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights 16% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 50% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Alpine 23% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 56% indicated that it was just right, 21% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful 10% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 53% indicated that it was just right, 19% indicated that it was too fast, and 18% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake 30% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 19% had no opinion; City: Midvale 32% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: Bountiful 35% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 14% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion

The graph below illustrates how many respondents perceived the pace of economic development as too slow, just right, too fast, or had no opinion, with additional breakdowns for the number of respondents who provided comments.

Sankey Graph. Title: Perceptions about the Pace of Economic Development in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Cedar City? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 673; No opinion: 55; Too fast: 182; Just right: 149; Too slow: 287; 'Too fast' without comment: 16; 'Too fast' with comment: 166; 'Too slow' without comment: 37; 'Too slow' with comment: 250

The 43% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too slow” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they would like to see more of in Cedar City. The need for more and better employment opportunities was a very strong theme as well as a concern about wages not matching the increasing cost of living and of housing. Many also asked for more shopping, dining and entertainment options, especially in the north part of town.

Additionally, the 27% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too fast” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they feel are growing too quickly in Cedar City. Many comments indicated that development is happening much too fast for the current infrastructure, amenities, water, and other resources. There were also concerns about the rate that housing is going up and feel that it is done with little regard to those who live in Cedar City. There were also comments about development obstructing views, replacing open space, and changing the culture of the town as well as concerns about traffic and crowding. The general attitude was that the growth is happening too quickly for what the city can handle.

Transportation in Cedar City

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in Cedar City. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (99%) and walking (33%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in Cedar City. Subtitle: What are your primary modes of transportation? (select all that apply on a regular basis) Data — 99% of respondents indicated yes to Personal Car; 33% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 13% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 5% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 1% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft); 1% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 1% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Cedar City. The most problematic barriers were Cost (44%) and Travel time (36%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Cedar City. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 56% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 44% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 64% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 36% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 74% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 26% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 80% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 20% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 86% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 14% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 89% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 11% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 90% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 10% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 98% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 2% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a set of possible transportation developments in Cedar City. The most important development to respondents were Improving road surfaces (74%), Enhancing safety (67%), and Adding road capacity (55%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in Cedar City. Subtitle: On a scale of 1 - Not at all important to 5 - Very important, please rate the importance of the following developments to you. Data — Category: Improving road surfaces - 26% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 74% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Enhancing safety - 33% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 67% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 45% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 55% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 47% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 53% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 48% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 52% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 59% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 41% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 59% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 41% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of Cedar City to another city or town. The most commonly indicated reasons for traveling to another city or town at least sometimes or once a month were Groceries (62%), Friends and Family (62%), and Eating Out (60%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of Cedar City Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of Cedar City to another city or town? Data — Category: Friends and Family - 38% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 62% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Groceries - 38% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 62% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Eating Out - 40% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 60% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 49% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 51% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 50% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 50% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 60% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 40% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 74% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 26% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 89% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 11% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 92% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 8% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns in Cedar City

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Cedar City. Water Supply (87%), Traffic (82%), Affordable Housing (79%), and Public Safety (78%) were the top concerns.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Cedar City. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Cedar City, 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: Traffic - 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% 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: Water Quality - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for Cedar City

Methods of Communication in Cedar City

Survey participants were also asked a few additional questions from Cedar City government in the survey. When asked about how they stay informed with what is happening in Cedar City, the most common responses were Social Media (85%), and Word of Mouth (73%). Other methods raised by respondents included Iron County Today, work, universities, city meetings, radio, and church.

Bar Graph. Title: How do you stay informed with what is happening in Cedar City?. Data — 85% of respondents indicated yes to Social Media; 73% of respondents indicated yes to Word of Mouth; 47% of respondents indicated yes to Signs Around Town; 44% of respondents indicated yes to Newspaper; 42% of respondents indicated yes to Monthly Newsletter; 39% of respondents indicated yes to City Website; 17% of respondents indicated yes to City Council Meetings; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Other

Likelihood to Recommend Cedar City as a Place to Live

Survey participants were asked about how likely they are to recommend Cedar City as a place to live to a friend on a scale from 1 (Not at all likely) to 10 (Extremely likely), which were then grouped according to groups defined by a modified Net Promoter Score where Detractors have scores 1-6, Passives have scores 7-8, and Promoters have scores 9-10. The modified Net Promoter Score (calculated by subtracting the % of Detractors from % of Promoters) for this question is -9. 

Bar Chart. Title: How likely are you to recommend Cedar City as a place to live to a friend?. Data — 1-6 (Detractors): 39% of respondents; 7-8 (Passives): 32% of respondents; 9-10 (Promoters): 30% of respondents

Satisfaction of Cedar City Services

Survey participants were also asked to rate their satisfaction with various Cedar City services on a scale from 1 (Not at all satisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied), with an option to say they had no opinion. The highest rated services with a 4 or 5 were Garbage Service (76%), Fire Department (73%), and the Police Department (71%).

Likert Graph. Title: Satisfaction with Cedar City Services. Subtitle: Scale is rated from 1 - Not at all satisfied to 5 - Very satisfied Data — Category: Building & Zoning -64% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 22%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 14% had no opinion; Category: City Hall Administration -47% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 27%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 26% had no opinion; Category: City Library -18% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 69%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 13% had no opinion; Category: City Parks -32% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 65%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 3% had no opinion; Category: Communication Efforts -48% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 43%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 9% had no opinion; Category: Fire Department - 7% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 73%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 20% had no opinion; Category: Garbage Service -19% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 76%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 5% had no opinion; Category: Heritage Theatre/Festival Hall -20% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 65%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 15% had no opinion; Category: Leisure Services Department -40% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 41%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 19% had no opinion; Category: Police Department -20% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 71%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 9% had no opinion; Category: Sponsored City Events -27% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 65%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 8% had no opinion; Category: Street Maintenance -58% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 40%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 2% had no opinion; Category: Water Service -30% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 60%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 10% had no opinion

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here.

What Respondents Value Most in Cedar City

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Cedar City. The most common words and phrases from all city comments are included in the word cloud below. It is possible that negative or unrelated words may appear since these words have been taken out of context, and they may not indicate the respondent’s intended meaning. The most comments indicated value for the small town feel and amenities of Cedar City. Many others indicated value of the people, friendliness and community. Many value the nature, beauty, views, and access to recreational activities.

A word cloud of most common words about what respondents value most in their city

Local Environmental Quality in Cedar City

The 35% of respondents who rated the Local Environmental Quality domain as 1, 2, or 3 (Poor, Fair, or Moderate) were further asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel are problematic. Trash across Cedar City was a large concern, and dust, litter, and rundown houses and buildings were all noted. Water scarcity and quality were mentioned as well and how new housing developments put current water rights at risk.

Improving Wellbeing in Cedar City

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Cedar City. Many respondents felt that slowing or stopping the growth and development of Cedar City would improve their wellbeing. They especially complained about related traffic and transportation issues and urged developers and city planners to plan better and ensure that proper infrastructure is in place before building. Several commenters also expressed concerns about zoning changes and felt that the planning commission has been enacting too many changes to zoning in order to help developers. Some commenters expressed concern about access to limited water resources with continued growth. Several commenters asked for more retail options, especially grocery stores (such as Costco, which was mentioned several times) and more restaurant options.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Cedar City. Most comments addressed growth and development, addressing concerns about increasing population, insufficient infrastructure, and changing town character and values. This question brought up more concerns about growth and development leading to problems with safety due to drugs, graffiti, etc. perceived to be increasing with outsiders. Several comments addressed social issues, such as unfriendliness, political contention, changing social climate. Several comments also addressed government issues, such as working conditions for government workers, political conflict/gridlock, and corruption/selfishness.

On This Page