Herriman Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Herriman 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 Herriman survey and comparative information with other project cities. In April and May 2024, Herriman City advertised the survey for residents largely through newsletters. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 131 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort.
  • The Herriman 2022 survey had 136 responses and the Herriman 2021 survey had 231 responses and the Herriman 2020 survey had 375 responses.
  • The adult population of Herriman was estimated at 35,051, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 131 survey responses in 2024 represent 0.4% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 8.55%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of Herriman 98.5%
Part Time Residents of Herriman 1.5%
Length of Residency — Range 0.1-45 years
Length of Residency — Average 9.9 years
Length of Residency — Median 8 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 37.4%

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 Herriman. People who have at least a 4-year college degree and are married were overrepresented while those who are age 18-29 and do not have a college degree were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Herriman 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 25%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 7%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 28%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 24%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 31%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 12%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 19%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 6%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 8%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 5%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 6%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 5%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 6%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 11%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 29%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 35%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 30%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 39%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 52%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 66%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 48%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 34%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 0%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 74%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 73%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 2%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 4%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 24%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 23%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 60%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 40%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 70%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 19%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 7%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 81%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 93%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 63%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 91%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 56%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 64%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 35%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 9%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 16%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 8%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 57%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 16%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 27%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Herriman

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Herriman. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Herriman was 3.97 with 76% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Herriman was 3.40 with 47% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 27% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Herriman? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 13% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Herriman over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score declined between 2020 and 2021, and remained nearly the same between 2021 and 2022, and improved between 2022 and 2024. The average community wellbeing score declined between 2020 and 2021, and remained nearly the same between 2021 and 2022, and declined between 2022 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 Herriman. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2020: 3.54; Community Wellbeing 2021: 3.47; Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.49; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.40; Personal Wellbeing 2020: 3.99; Personal Wellbeing 2021: 3.86; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.87; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 3.97

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. Herriman is classified as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster.

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Herriman 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 Herriman

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 Herriman were Family Life (79%), Safety and Security (70%), and Living Standards (64%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (97%), Family Life (96%), and Physical Health (95%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 55% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 45% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 59% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 41% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 64% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 36% rated as good or excellent; Category: Transportation - 69% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 31% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 79% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 21% rated as good or excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Herriman. 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: Family Life - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% 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: Leisure Time - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% rated as important or very important; Category: Transportation -26% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 74% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -34% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 66% rated as important or very important; Category: Education -39% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 61% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -54% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 46% rated as important or very important

Wellbeing Matrix for Herriman

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

Scatterplot. Title: Herriman 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, Local Environmental Quality, Social Connections, and Transportation

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Herriman

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Herriman 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. Most domains maintained fairly consistent ratings over the survey years. Safety and Security and Living Standards were consistently among the highest rated domains in each survey year, while Cultural Opportunities was among the lowest.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Herriman. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2020: 3.35; Connection with Nature 2021: 3.24; Connection with Nature 2022: 3.36; Connection with Nature 2024: 3.46; Cultural Opportunities 2020: 2.72; Cultural Opportunities 2021: 2.63; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 2.78; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 2.76; Education 2020: 3.63; Education 2021: 3.47; Education 2022: 3.67; Education 2024: 3.23; Family Life 2024: 4.12; Leisure Time 2020: 3.30; Leisure Time 2021: 3.21; Leisure Time 2022: 3.42; Leisure Time 2024: 3.59; Living Standards 2020: 3.87; Living Standards 2021: 3.74; Living Standards 2022: 3.83; Living Standards 2024: 3.73; Local Environmental Quality 2020: 3.26; Local Environmental Quality 2021: 3.20; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 3.13; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.02; Mental Health 2020: 3.53; Mental Health 2021: 3.40; Mental Health 2022: 3.78; Mental Health 2024: 3.64; Physical Health 2020: 3.56; Physical Health 2021: 3.36; Physical Health 2022: 3.62; Physical Health 2024: 3.63; Safety and Security 2020: 3.79; Safety and Security 2021: 3.62; Safety and Security 2022: 3.76; Safety and Security 2024: 3.81; Social Connections 2020: 3.34; Social Connections 2021: 3.19; Social Connections 2022: 3.36; Social Connections 2024: 3.30; Transportation 2024: 2.67

Community Connection in Herriman

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Herriman on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.77.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Herriman. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Herriman as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 14% of respondents; 2: 27% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 15% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Herriman over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score declined between 2020 and 2021, and remained nearly the same between 2021 and 2022, and improved slightly between 2022 and 2024.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Herriman. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2020: 2.95; 2021: 2.72; 2022: 2.71; 2024: 2.77

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 Herriman. Data — Of the 6 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 26 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 96% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 4% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 63 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 36 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 44% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Herriman. Data — Of the 18 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 89% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 30 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 87% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 13% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 58 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 79% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 22 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 45% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 55% 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. Herriman ranked 51 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 (94%), recreating in parks in your city (80%), gardening at home (75%), and using trails in or near your city (74%).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in Herriman. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 94% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 80% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 75% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 74% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 64% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 64% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 46% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 43% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 31% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah was significantly related to higher ratings of personal wellbeing.

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

Participating in city recreation programs, participating in community events, and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah were significantly related to higher ratings of community connection.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Herriman indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (86%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was too slow (40%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Herriman? Data — Too Slow: 0% of respondents; Just Right: 9% of respondents; Too Fast: 86% of respondents; No Opinion: 5% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Herriman? Data — Too Slow: 40% of respondents; Just Right: 28% of respondents; Too Fast: 25% of respondents; No Opinion: 7% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Herriman have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. Perception that the rate of population growth is too fast has consistently been very high over the survey years, with a slight decline since 2020. Perceptions of the pace of economic development have fluctuated over the years.

Line Graph. Title: Herriman Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 0.5% rated too slow, 6.7% rated just right, 91.2% rated too fast; 2021: 0.5% rated too slow, 6.4% rated just right, 90.4% rated too fast; 2022: 0.9% rated too slow, 7.0% rated just right, 88.7% rated too fast; 2024: 0.0% rated too slow, 9.1% rated just right, 86.4% rated too fast

Line Graph. Title: Herriman Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 48.1% rated too slow, 24.7% rated just right, 23.4% rated too fast; 2021: 27.6% rated too slow, 27.0% rated just right, 39.5% rated too fast; 2022: 25.2% rated too slow, 19.1% rated just right, 47.8% rated too fast; 2024: 40.0% rated too slow, 28.3% rated just right, 25.0% rated too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Herriman compared to other participating cities and towns in the Rapid Growth Cities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Saratoga Springs 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 5% indicated that it was just right, 90% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Ivins 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 7% indicated that it was just right, 88% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Herriman 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 9% indicated that it was just right, 86% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Lehi 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% indicated that it was just right, 85% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Nibley 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 10% indicated that it was just right, 83% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Mapleton 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 80% indicated that it was too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: West Haven 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 77% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Hyrum 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 75% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Spanish Fork 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 74% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Vineyard 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 21% indicated that it was just right, 68% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Hyde Park 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Providence 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Clinton 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 63% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Wellsville 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Ivins 15% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 55% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Lehi 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 31% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Spanish Fork 6% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Saratoga Springs 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 36% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: West Haven 34% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 34% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Mapleton 31% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 33% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Nibley 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 30% indicated that it was too fast, and 19% had no opinion; City: Clinton 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Providence 12% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 27% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Hyrum 32% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 30% indicated that it was just right, 26% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Herriman 40% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 25% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Vineyard 50% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 21% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Hyde Park 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 18% had no opinion; City: Wellsville 37% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 44% indicated that it was just right, 7% 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 Herriman. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Herriman? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 120; No opinion: 8; Too fast: 30; Just right: 34; Too slow: 48; 'Too fast' without comment: 5; 'Too fast' with comment: 25; 'Too slow' without comment: 8; 'Too slow' with comment: 40

The 40% 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 Herriman. An overwhelming majority of comments pleaded for more stores, restaurants, and businesses in Herriman. Many people expressed frustration in having to leave town for everything they need.

Additionally, the 25% 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 Herriman. Comments mainly centered around infrastructure and traffic and how that is lagging behind building development.

Transportation in Herriman

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in Herriman. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (99%) and walking (27%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in Herriman. 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; 27% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 8% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 5% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 1% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft); 0% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Herriman. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (68%) and Lack of routes (50%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Herriman. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Travel time - 32% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 68% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 50% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 50% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Cost - 68% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 32% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 77% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 23% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 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: Knowledge - 95% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 5% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 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; Category: Language - 100% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 0% 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 Herriman. The most important development to respondents were Improving road surfaces (88%), Adding road capacity (79%), and Enhancing safety (77%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in Herriman. 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 - 12% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 88% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 21% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 79% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Enhancing safety - 23% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 77% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 44% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 56% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 45% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 55% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 48% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 52% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 51% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 49% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of Herriman 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 Eating Out (92%), Friends and Family (91%), and Other Services (84%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of Herriman Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of Herriman to another city or town? Data — Category: Eating Out - 8% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 92% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Friends and Family - 9% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 91% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 16% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 84% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Groceries - 19% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 81% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 26% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 74% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 31% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 69% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 31% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 69% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 70% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 30% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 78% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 22% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns in Herriman

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Herriman. Traffic (95%), Water Supply (87%), and Water Quality (85%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about social and emotional support (-21%), access to mental health care (-17%), substance misuse (-17%), access to health care (-15%), suicide (-13%), and climate change (-12%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Herriman. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Herriman, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Traffic - 5% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 95% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; 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: Water Quality - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 80% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 20% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 81% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 19% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 88% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 12% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for Herriman

Commuting and Transportation in Herriman

Survey respondents from 2021, 2022, and 2024 survey years were asked whether or not they commuted to work. The results from each year are shown below. In 2024, 60.4% of respondents indicated that they commuted to work.

Bar Chart. Title: Percent of Respondents that Commute to Work. Subtitle: Percent of Respondents that replied Yes to: Do you commute for work? Data — 2021: 57.1% of respondents; 2022: 51.4% of respondents; 2024: 60.4% of respondents

For survey participants that indicated they commute, they were also asked how they commute to work. The most common method for each survey year is a personal vehicle. Other forms of commuting included work vehicles.

Bar Chart. Title: Methods of Commuting in Herriman. Subtitle: How do you usually get to work? Data — 2021: 96.0% of respondents used a personal vehicle, 2.0% of respondents used public transit, and 2.0% of respondents used other means; 2022: 94.6% of respondents used a personal vehicle, 1.8% of respondents used public transit, and 3.6% of respondents used other means; 2024: 95.5% of respondents used a personal vehicle, 3.0% of respondents used public transit, and 1.5% of respondents used other means

Additionally, survey participants were asked how long their commute was, and the distribution of each survey year can be seen below. The average, median, and range of commute times has stayed fairly consistent between survey years.

Dot plot. Title: Minutes Commuting in Herriman. Data — 2021 Statistics: Average commute - 29 minutes, Median Commute - 30 minutes, Range of Commutes: 2 - 60 minutes; 2022 Statistics: Average commute - 30 minutes, Median Commute - 30 minutes, Range of Commutes: 2 - 80 minutes; 2024 Statistics: Average commute - 32 minutes, Median Commute - 30 minutes, Range of Commutes: 1 - 90 minutes

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 Herriman

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Herriman. 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. Most comments indicated that Herriman’s social climate was what they valued most, usually due to connections to family or strong communities. There were several comments that addressed valuing the city character, access to nature and recreation, safety, and peace and quiet. There was a significant number of negative comments, especially from individuals who felt they used to value things like community, small town feel, open spaces, etc. but feel that there is too much development now.

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

Local Environmental Quality in Herriman

The 64% 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. Overall air quality was a major concern affecting the public health local environmental quality. Concerns about traffic and need to alternative modes of transportation were common. There were also many mentions of wanting/needing more green or open spaces.

Improving Wellbeing in Herriman

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Herriman. Comments overwhelmingly addressed transportation, housing, and/or growth and development. Many expressed that there has been too much focus on building high-density housing and not enough focus on creating sufficient transportation infrastructure to accommodate that housing. The majority of commenters expressed that their wellbeing would be improved if the city focused on improving transportation infrastructure, particularly creating more roads going east/west, fixing other traffic problems, and providing more public transportation options. A few also addressed recreation and requested more access to things like trails, the nearby reservoir, and other recreational activities in the city.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Herriman. Many comments addressed transportation issues, primarily around traffic, traffic control, and road upkeep. There were also several concerns about growth and development and effects on the economy, such as increased taxes. Some comments requested more access to recreation and more affordable options for restaurants and retail.

On This Page