East Carbon Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

East Carbon 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 East Carbon survey and comparative information with other project cities. In March and April 2024, East Carbon City advertised the survey for residents through social media and website links sent to residents. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 187 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort.
  • The East Carbon 2022 survey had 131 responses and the East Carbon 2021 survey had 104 responses.
  • The adult population of East Carbon was estimated at 1,124, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 187 survey responses in 2024 represent 16.6% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.55%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of East Carbon 93.6%
Part Time Residents of East Carbon 6.4%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5-88 years
Length of Residency — Average 22.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 15 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 31.2%
ZIP Code Percent
84520 80.7%
84539 19.3%

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 East Carbon. People who are adult females were overrepresented while those who are adult males were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: East Carbon 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 12%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 18%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 9%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 12%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 19%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 20%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 13%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 24%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 23%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 26%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 22%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 24%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 32%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 22%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 24%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 10%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 6%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 9%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 3%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 47%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 68%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 53%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 31%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 1%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 41%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 49%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 7%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 4%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 52%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 47%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 88%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 84%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 12%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 16%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 32%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 18%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 68%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 82%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 60%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 58%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 32%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 36%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 29%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 44%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 16%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 6%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 32%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 32%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 36%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in East Carbon

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in East Carbon. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in East Carbon was 3.75 with 65% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in East Carbon was 3.03 with 34% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. No statistically significant differences were found between ZIP codes 84520 and 84539 when comparing overall personal or community wellbeing scores.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 25% of respondents; 4: 41% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in East Carbon? Data — 1 Poor: 11% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 24% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 11% of respondents

When comparing survey data from East Carbon over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score declined between 2021 and 2022, and remained nearly the same between 2022 and 2024. The average community wellbeing score has remained fairly consistent over the survey years. 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 East Carbon. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2021: 2.98; Community Wellbeing 2022: 2.98; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.03; Personal Wellbeing 2021: 3.82; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.73; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 3.75

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. East Carbon is classified as a Traditional Rural Community (and we have combined these with the Rural Hub/Resort Communities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster.

Within the Rural city cluster, East Carbon 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 East Carbon

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 East Carbon were Connection with Nature (76%), Mental Health (61%), and Family Life (59%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (95%), Mental Health (92%), Living Standards (91%), and Physical Health (90%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Connection with Nature - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Family Life - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 61% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 39% rated as good or excellent; Category: Transportation - 62% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 38% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 63% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 37% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 82% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 18% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 82% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 18% rated as good or excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in East Carbon. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health -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 -14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time -16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Transportation -21% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 79% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -35% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% rated as important or very important; Category: Education -37% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 63% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -39% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 61% rated as important or very important

Wellbeing Matrix for East Carbon

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in East Carbon

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by East Carbon 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. Education saw the largest drop in overall ratings from 2022 to 2024. Connection with Nature was consistently highly rated over the survey years, while Cultural Opportunities was consistently low.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in East Carbon. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2021: 4.08; Connection with Nature 2022: 3.94; Connection with Nature 2024: 4.03; Cultural Opportunities 2021: 2.61; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 2.57; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 2.40; Education 2021: 3.07; Education 2022: 3.35; Education 2024: 2.37; Family Life 2024: 3.69; Leisure Time 2021: 3.47; Leisure Time 2022: 3.53; Leisure Time 2024: 3.56; Living Standards 2021: 3.38; Living Standards 2022: 3.43; Living Standards 2024: 3.23; Local Environmental Quality 2021: 2.99; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 3.29; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.08; Mental Health 2021: 3.52; Mental Health 2022: 3.65; Mental Health 2024: 3.74; Physical Health 2021: 3.26; Physical Health 2022: 3.33; Physical Health 2024: 3.49; Safety and Security 2021: 3.23; Safety and Security 2022: 3.28; Safety and Security 2024: 3.28; Social Connections 2021: 2.87; Social Connections 2022: 2.97; Social Connections 2024: 2.90; Transportation 2024: 2.78

Community Connection in East Carbon

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to East Carbon on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.83. No statistically significant difference was found between ZIP codes 84520 and 84539 when comparing overall community connection scores.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in East Carbon. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to East Carbon as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 20% of respondents; 2: 25% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 14% of respondents

When comparing survey data from East Carbon over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score slightly declined over the survey years.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in East Carbon. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2021: 2.91; 2022: 2.86; 2024: 2.83

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 East Carbon. Data — Of the 19 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 47 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 77% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 77 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 58% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 44 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 50% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in East Carbon. Data — Of the 5 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 18 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 2, 94% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 6% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 46 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 78% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 56 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 62% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 51 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 43% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 57% 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. East Carbon ranked 33 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 (80%), using trails in or near your city (78%), community events (71%), and gardening at home (70%).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in East Carbon. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 80% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 78% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 71% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 70% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 68% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 59% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 55% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 38% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 32% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 5% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

Buying food from a farmer's market, participating in city recreation programs, and participating in community events were significantly related to higher ratings of personal wellbeing.

Participating in city recreation programs and participating in community events 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, motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, recreating in parks in 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 largest proportion of respondents in East Carbon indicated that they felt the population growth was just right (42%). For the pace of economic development, the majority of respondents indicated that it was too slow (68%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in East Carbon? Data — Too Slow: 22% of respondents; Just Right: 42% of respondents; Too Fast: 9% of respondents; No Opinion: 27% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in East Carbon? Data — Too Slow: 68% of respondents; Just Right: 19% of respondents; Too Fast: 2% of respondents; No Opinion: 11% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in East Carbon have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. Perceptions of the rate of population growth has stayed fairly consistent from 2022 to 2024. Perceptions of the pace of economic development shows a small decrease in the perception that it is too slow, yet that response still remains high across the survey years.

Line Graph. Title: East Carbon Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2021: 35.2% rated too slow, 35.2% rated just right, 8.8% rated too fast; 2022: 22.2% rated too slow, 42.7% rated just right, 16.2% rated too fast; 2024: 21.7% rated too slow, 41.6% rated just right, 9.3% rated too fast

Line Graph. Title: East Carbon Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2021: 78.8% rated too slow, 15.3% rated just right, 1.2% rated too fast; 2022: 74.4% rated too slow, 15.4% rated just right, 0.0% rated too fast; 2024: 68.3% rated too slow, 19.2% rated just right, 1.8% rated too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for East Carbon compared to other participating cities and towns in the Rural cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Heber 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 7% indicated that it was just right, 90% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Midway 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 14% indicated that it was just right, 84% indicated that it was too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Tremonton 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 15% indicated that it was just right, 77% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Park City 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 17% indicated that it was just right, 75% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Nephi 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 61% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Vernal 7% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 56% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Delta 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 29% indicated that it was just right, 47% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: La Verkin 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 39% indicated that it was just right, 47% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Springdale 7% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 44% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Emigration Canyon 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 44% indicated that it was just right, 41% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Beaver 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 53% indicated that it was just right, 26% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Price 26% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 18% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Blanding 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 17% indicated that it was too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Bluff 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 54% indicated that it was just right, 12% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Helper 17% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 50% indicated that it was just right, 11% indicated that it was too fast, and 22% had no opinion; City: East Carbon 22% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 9% indicated that it was too fast, and 27% had no opinion; City: Monticello 58% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 0% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Springdale 10% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 69% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Park City 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Heber 22% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 20% indicated that it was just right, 49% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Midway 12% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% indicated that it was just right, 35% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: La Verkin 28% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 28% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Tremonton 51% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 24% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Nephi 35% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% indicated that it was just right, 19% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Delta 52% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 16% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Vernal 48% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Emigration Canyon 8% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 56% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 22% had no opinion; City: Helper 45% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 10% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Bluff 37% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 46% indicated that it was just right, 10% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Beaver 54% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% indicated that it was just right, 7% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Price 76% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 12% indicated that it was just right, 3% indicated that it was too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Blanding 61% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 3% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: East Carbon 68% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 2% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Monticello 76% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 12% indicated that it was just right, 0% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% 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 East Carbon. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in East Carbon? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 167; No opinion: 18; Too fast: 3; Just right: 32; Too slow: 114; 'Too fast' without comment: 1; 'Too fast' with comment: 2; 'Too slow' without comment: 20; 'Too slow' with comment: 94

The 68% 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 East Carbon. The majority of comments mentioned the need for businesses and employment. Comments often mentioned the need for more opportunities for youth, both in terms of things to do as well as employment. There was some frustration with local government expressed. Some offered suggestions for specific businesses or services to consider.

Additionally, the 2% 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 East Carbon. One perspective was not supportive of growth while another commented on the need for patience related to growth.

Transportation in East Carbon

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in East Carbon. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (97%) and walking (24%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in East Carbon. Subtitle: What are your primary modes of transportation? (select all that apply on a regular basis) Data — 97% of respondents indicated yes to Personal Car; 24% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 8% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 2% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device; 2% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 0% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft)

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in East Carbon. The most problematic barriers were Cost (56%) and Travel time (52%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in East Carbon. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 44% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 56% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 48% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 52% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 75% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 25% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 82% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 18% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 83% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 17% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 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: Knowledge - 92% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 8% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 97% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 3% 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 East Carbon. The most important development to respondents were Improving road surfaces (59%), Enhancing safety (58%), Connecting communities (51%), and More trails (51%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in East Carbon. 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 - 41% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 59% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Enhancing safety - 42% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 58% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 49% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 51% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 49% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 51% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 55% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 45% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 55% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 45% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 75% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 25% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of East Carbon 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 (98%), Eating Out (84%), and Other Services (78%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of East Carbon Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of East Carbon to another city or town? Data — Category: Groceries - 2% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 98% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Eating Out - 16% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 84% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 22% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 78% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Friends and Family - 28% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 72% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 33% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 67% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 39% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 61% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 56% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 44% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 72% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 28% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 81% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 19% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns in East Carbon

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of East Carbon. Opportunities for Youth (87%), Water Supply (81%), and Water Quality (79%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about affordable housing (+11%) notably increased, while concern about suicide (-11%) and water supply (-10%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in East Carbon. Subtitle: As you look to the future of East Carbon, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Opportunities for Youth - 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 19% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 81% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to 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: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 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 - 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 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 - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 79% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 21% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

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 East Carbon

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about East Carbon. 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. Respondents from East Carbon valued the social climate they can find there, specifically valuing families and community. The peace and quiet as well as the small town feel of East Carbon are of value to many. Nature and the natural environment that can be accessed in East Carbon were also mentioned.

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

Local Environmental Quality in East Carbon

The 61% 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. For East Carbon, a number of environmental issues were prevalent in comments. Air, soil, and water quality were mentioned, particularly regarding the coal plant. Issues of trash and lack of cleanliness in East Carbon were also notable in the comments, particularly related to green spaces. Drug use was also a commonly noted concern.

Improving Wellbeing in East Carbon

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in East Carbon. East Carbon respondents often mentioned concerns about substance misuse in the town and that addressing this would improve overall wellbeing. People also mentioned that unsightly yards and properties detracted from wellbeing. Recreation and opportunities like youth activities and sports would also improve community wellbeing.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in East Carbon. The local economy was often mentioned as many things are not affordable for many and that many people leave the community to do their shopping. Many people mentioned wanting more resources for those dealing with substance misuse, and some brought up local opportunities as a solution. Finally, comments about growth and development arouse, some mentioning growth is not enough to support those that live there and wanting growth.

On This Page