Park City Area Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

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

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

This report describes findings from the 2024 Park City survey and comparative information with other project cities. In April and May 2024, Park City government advertised the survey for residents through social media, newsletters, and the Park Record. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey. While not strictly in the city of Park City, many respondents indicated they were from the surrounding area in ZIP Code 84098, and their responses have been included in this report. Notable differences between the responses for the city of Park City (only ZIP Code 84060 responses) and the greater area (all responses) are highlighted throughout the report. 

How many people responded?

  • 205 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort. 108 viable surveys were recorded for Park City. 
  • The Park City Area 2022 survey had 390 responses.
  • The adult population of Park City was estimated at 6,945, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 108 Park City survey responses in 2024 represent 1.6% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.36%. 

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of the Park City Area 87.8%
Part Time Residents of the Park City Area 12.2%
Length of Residency — Range 1-49 years
Length of Residency — Average 15.1 years
Length of Residency — Median 12 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 32.2%
ZIP Code Percent
84060 (Park City) 52.7%
84098 39.0%
Other 8.3%

Demographic characteristics of the Park City (ZIP Code 84060) 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, the 108 Park City 2024 survey respondents were not fully representative of Park City. People who are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, have an income $150,000 or over, and are married were overrepresented while those who are adult males and do not have a college degree were underrepresented. 

Dot Plot. Title: Park City 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 18%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 17%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 19%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 16%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 14%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 18%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 22%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 18%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 12%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 7%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 6%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 14%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 45%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 71%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 49%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 67%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 51%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 32%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 1%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 71%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 64%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 1%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 28%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 34%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 35%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 12%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 65%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 88%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 25%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 75%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 87%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 49%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 82%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 26%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 33%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 16%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 10%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 43%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 54%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in the Park City Area

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Park City. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in the Park City Area was 4.22 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in the Park City Area was 3.85 with 73% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. 

Looking at respondents from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the average personal wellbeing score was similar at 4.23, with 82% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in just Park City was slightly higher at 3.94, with 77% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Park City. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 47% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Park City. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Park City? Data — 1 Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 26% of respondents

When comparing survey data from the Park City Area over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score and the average community wellbeing score improved 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 Park City. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.50; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.85; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 4.04; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 4.22

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

Within the Rural city cluster, the Park City Area was above the average overall personal wellbeing score and above 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 Area 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 Area Average Score 3.85; Bluff Average Score 3.88; Midway Average Score 4.07; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.28

Wellbeing Domains in the Park City Area

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 the Park City Area were Connection with Nature (88%), Safety and Security (87%), and Leisure Time (86%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (97%), and Physical Health (97%).

Looking at respondents from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents were Leisure Time (89%), Connection with Nature (88%), Safety and Security (84%), and Mental Health (84%). Cultural Opportunities also saw a 6% increase in respondents indicating a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The most important wellbeing domains were very similar. 

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Park City. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Connection with Nature - 12% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 88% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 14% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 86% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 17% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 83% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Family Life - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Transportation - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 48% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 52% rated as good or excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Park City. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% 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: Living Standards - 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 - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Family Life -13% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 87% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% 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: Education -32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -35% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% rated as important or very important

Wellbeing Matrix for the Park City Area

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from the Park City Area. Connection with Nature, 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. No domains changed quadrants when looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060).

Scatterplot. Title: Park City Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Family Life, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security; 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 the Park City Area

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by the Park City Area 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. Almost all of the domains increased in their overall ratings, except for Social Connections and Education which decreased. Safety and Security and Connection with Nature were consistently among the top rated domains in both survey years.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Park City. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2022: 4.19; Connection with Nature 2024: 4.41; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 3.52; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 3.52; Education 2022: 3.83; Education 2024: 3.51; Family Life 2024: 4.07; Leisure Time 2022: 4.06; Leisure Time 2024: 4.33; Living Standards 2022: 4.07; Living Standards 2024: 4.14; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 3.63; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.98; Mental Health 2022: 3.92; Mental Health 2024: 4.15; Physical Health 2022: 4.14; Physical Health 2024: 4.20; Safety and Security 2022: 4.18; Safety and Security 2024: 4.41; Social Connections 2022: 3.74; Social Connections 2024: 3.63; Transportation 2024: 3.79

Community Connection in the Park City Area

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Park City on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.32. 

Looking at respondents from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the average community connection score was higher at 3.41. 

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Park City. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Park City as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% of respondents

When comparing survey data from the Park City Area over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score improved between 2022 and 2024.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Park City. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2022: 3.23; 2024: 3.32

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing, and to some extent between community connection and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Park City. Data — Of the 9 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing 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 31 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing 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 69 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 67% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 96 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 31% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 69% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Park City. 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 8 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 2, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 22 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 91% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 9% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 74 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 53% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 81 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 35% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 65% 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. The Park City Area ranked 17 out of the 51 cities that participated.

Looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the ranking improves to 10th, with 50% of respondents indicating a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. 

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 Area 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 (98%), using trails in or near your city (94%), recreating in parks in your city (90%), and community events (89%). Results were similar when looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in Park City. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 98% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 94% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 90% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 89% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 82% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 73% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 61% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 54% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 25% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 7% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

Buying food from a farmer's market, gardening at home, and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah were significantly related to higher ratings of personal wellbeing and community wellbeing.

Buying food from a farmer's market, participating in city recreation programs, and gardening at home were significantly related to higher ratings of community connection.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in the Park City Area indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (75%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was too fast (49%). Results were similar when looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Park City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Park City? Data — Too Slow: 1% of respondents; Just Right: 17% of respondents; Too Fast: 75% of respondents; No Opinion: 7% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Park City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Park City? Data — Too Slow: 13% of respondents; Just Right: 27% of respondents; Too Fast: 49% of respondents; No Opinion: 11% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in the Park City Area have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. While the largest proportion of respondents indicated that the rate of population growth and the pace of economic development was too fast, both saw large decreases from 2022 to 2024.

Line Graph. Title: Park City Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2022: 0.8% rated too slow, 5.6% rated just right, 91.0% rated too fast; 2024: 0.6% rated too slow, 16.9% rated just right, 75.3% rated too fast

Line Graph. Title: Park City Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2022: 3.1% rated too slow, 9.6% rated just right, 85.4% rated too fast; 2024: 12.9% rated too slow, 27.4% rated just right, 48.9% rated too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for the Park City Area 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 Park City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Park City? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 186; No opinion: 20; Too fast: 91; Just right: 51; Too slow: 24; 'Too fast' without comment: 14; 'Too fast' with comment: 77; 'Too slow' without comment: 3; 'Too slow' with comment: 21

The 13% 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 Park City. Many commented on the need for more housing options for locals and for service employees, especially more affordable housing. Others also asked for increased wages and more local services like childcare and cheaper restaurants. Comments from zipcode 84060 were generally similar. 

Additionally, the 49% 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 Park City. Housing was often mentioned, with many opinions about there being too much or too little, about it being too expensive or too cheap, and comments about the supply not matching the workforce, being catered to tourists, or being bought up by millionaires as their second or third home. People also brought up development quite often, saying that there is too much building going on and that it’s creating crowding and traffic problems and that the infrastructure is not keeping up. There were also quite a few comments about the growth being for noncitizens and locals not feeling like it is serving them or in their interest. Increased cost of living was brought up often. Comments from zipcode 84060 were generally similar. 

Transportation in the Park City Area

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in Park City. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (98%) and walking (58%).

Looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the proportion of respondents walking (69%), biking (47%), and using public transportation (42%) were all higher.

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in Park City. Subtitle: What are your primary modes of transportation? (select all that apply on a regular basis) Data — 98% of respondents indicated yes to Personal Car; 58% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 42% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 35% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 14% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft); 10% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 4% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Park City. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (54%) and Lack of routes (32%).

Looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the percentage of respondents who indicated sometimes, often, or always decreased for Travel Time by 8%. 

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Park City. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Travel time - 46% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 54% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 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: Cost - 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: 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 - 86% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 14% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 88% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 12% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 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: Language - 99% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 1% 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 Park City. The most important development to respondents were Improving walkability (77%), More trails (77%), and Improving public transit (72%).

Looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the proportion of respondents who indicated a 3, 4, or 5 for Improving walkability and More trails each increased by 5%. 

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in Park City. Subtitle: On a scale of 1 - Not at all important to 5 - Very important, please rate the importance of the following developments to you. Data — Category: Improving walkability - 23% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 77% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 23% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 77% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 28% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 72% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving road surfaces - 30% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 70% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 41% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 59% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Enhancing safety - 43% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 57% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 52% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 48% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of Park City to another city or town. The most commonly indicated reasons for traveling to another city or town at least sometimes or once a month were Friends and Family (63%), Eating Out (62%), and Groceries (58%). 

Results were similar when looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of Park City Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of Park City to another city or town? Data — Category: Friends and Family - 37% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 63% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Eating Out - 38% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 62% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Groceries - 42% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 58% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 49% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 51% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 51% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 49% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 63% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 37% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 68% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 32% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 92% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 8% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 95% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 5% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns in the Park City Area

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Park City. Water Supply (86%), Traffic (85%), Water Quality (78%), and Climate Change (77%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about shopping opportunities (+15%) notably increased, while concern about substance misuse (-17%), suicide (-10%), and air quality (-10%) notably decreased.

Looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), concerns about Affordable Housing (65%), Social and Emotional Support (39%), Employment Opportunities (38%), Homelessness (36%), Mental Health Care (34%), Suicide (27%) were lower, while concerns about Trails & Paths (77%), Access to Health Care (49%) were higher. 

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Park City. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Park City, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Water Supply - 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 73% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 27% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 78% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 22% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 79% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 21% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for the Park City Area

Communication Methods in the Park City Area

Survey respondents in the Park City area were asked to select all the sources where they received information on Park City Municipal news, meetings, and events. The most popular ways were Park Record (77%), KPCW (72%), and Town Lift (56%). The Park City Area 2022 survey also indicates similar results. Other sources of obtaining information generally included work and city council/planning meetings.

Looking at responses from just Park City (ZIP Code 84060), the percentage of respondents who indicated Nextdoor (20%) was lower, while those who indicated City Website (39%), and the Newsletter (37%) was higher. 

Bar Graph. Title: Where do you get your information on Park City Municipal news, meetings, and events?. Data — 77% of respondents indicated yes to Park Record; 72% of respondents indicated yes to KPCW; 56% of respondents indicated yes to Town Lift; 47% of respondents indicated yes to E-mail; 39% of respondents indicated yes to Word of mouth; 36% of respondents indicated yes to Instagram; 33% of respondents indicated yes to Facebook; 33% of respondents indicated yes to Nextdoor; 31% of respondents indicated yes to City Website; 30% of respondents indicated yes to City newsletter; 16% of respondents indicated yes to E-notify alerts; 12% of respondents indicated yes to Text alerts; 10% of respondents indicated yes to HOA; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Flyers; 6% of respondents indicated yes to X (Twitter); 6% of respondents indicated yes to Postcards; 3% of respondents indicated yes to Other

Survey respondents were also asked about ways to improve getting information out. There were a variety of comments about information delivery. They generally suggest that a multifaceted approach to communication across delivery outlets is important as people have different preferences. Respondents indicated that getting information out in a timely manner and prior to events would be appreciated.

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here. Comments from Park City alone (zip code 84060) did not differ greatly from the wider area beyond Park City.

What Respondents Value Most in the Park City Area

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Park City. The most common words and phrases from all city comments are included in the word cloud below. It is possible that negative or unrelated words may appear since these words have been taken out of context, and they may not indicate the respondent’s intended meaning. Respondents valued recreation very highly and made many comments about enjoying their access to the outdoors and to activities such as hiking, biking, and skiing. Many people also commented on their connection to nature.

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

Local Environmental Quality in the Park City Area

The 28% 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. Air quality was the most common concern regarding local environmental quality. Water quality was also a concern, particularly regarding contamination from previous mining developments and ski wax. Traffic and having a more walkable city were also prevalent concerns in Park City.

Improving Wellbeing in the Park City Area

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Park City. A majority of the comments on how wellbeing could be improved centered around transportation and the desire for better public transportation especially in the winter when there are more tourists. Many people also asked for enhanced walkability and bike-ability in the town. Traffic was a frequent comment as well.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Park City. Lack of affordable housing and affordable shopping was mentioned several times. Respondents also focused on the idea of neglect from the city in terms of services and opportunities and felt that the tourists are the focus of Park City in many regards.

On This Page