Price Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

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

How many people responded?

  • 292 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort.
  • The Price 2022 survey had 261 responses and the Price 2021 survey had 230 responses.
  • The adult population of Price was estimated at 6,077, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 292 survey responses in 2024 represent 4.8% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.6%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of Price 97.3%
Part Time Residents of Price 2.7%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5-78 years
Length of Residency — Average 24.6 years
Length of Residency — Median 21 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 21.0%
City Area Percent
Another location in ZIP code 84501 9.3%
Carbonville 6.9%
Miller Creek 2.8%
Price 73.4%
Westwood 7.6%

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 Price. People who are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and are employed were overrepresented while those who are adult males, do not have a college degree, have an income under $25,000, and are not employed for various reasons were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Price 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 22%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 18%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 24%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 24%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 16%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 16%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 8%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 30%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 23%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 18%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 17%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 19%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 9%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 15%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 13%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 24%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 7%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 52%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 73%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 48%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 26%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 0%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 54%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 72%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 5%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 41%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 25%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 85%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 65%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 35%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 40%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 28%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 60%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 72%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 49%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 73%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 36%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 47%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 16%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 37%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 7%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 32%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 26%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 42%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Price

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Price. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Price was 3.62 with 58% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Price was 2.88 with 27% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. While Carbonville and Westwood had slightly higher overall personal and community wellbeing scores than Price, these differences were not statistically significant.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Price. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 42% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 16% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Price. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Price? Data — 1 Poor: 9% of respondents; 2: 27% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 6% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Price over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score remained nearly the same between 2021 and 2022, and declined between 2022 and 2024. The average community wellbeing score 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 Price. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2021: 3.17; Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.15; Community Wellbeing 2024: 2.88; Personal Wellbeing 2021: 3.79; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.83; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 3.62

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. Price 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, Price 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 Price

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 Price were Connection with Nature (59%), Safety and Security (58%), and Family Life (57%). The most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (96%), Safety and Security (96%), and Living Standards (95%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Price. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Connection with Nature - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Family Life - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 58% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 42% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 59% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 41% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 61% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 39% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 68% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 32% rated as good or excellent; Category: Transportation - 68% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 32% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 73% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 27% rated as good or excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Price. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Mental Health - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Family Life - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health -11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time -16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Education -28% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 72% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -30% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Transportation -32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -40% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 60% rated as important or very important

Wellbeing Matrix for Price

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

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Price

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Price 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 either remained fairly consistent from 2022 to 2024 or declined in their ratings. Connection with Nature and Safety and Security were consistently among the top rated domains in each survey year, while Cultural Opportunities was among in the lowest.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Price. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2021: 3.77; Connection with Nature 2022: 3.64; Connection with Nature 2024: 3.62; Cultural Opportunities 2021: 2.60; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 2.89; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 2.79; Education 2021: 3.38; Education 2022: 3.40; Education 2024: 3.22; Family Life 2024: 3.64; Leisure Time 2021: 3.18; Leisure Time 2022: 3.25; Leisure Time 2024: 3.22; Living Standards 2021: 3.38; Living Standards 2022: 3.35; Living Standards 2024: 3.15; Local Environmental Quality 2021: 3.72; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 3.44; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.36; Mental Health 2021: 3.28; Mental Health 2022: 3.42; Mental Health 2024: 3.44; Physical Health 2021: 3.21; Physical Health 2022: 3.43; Physical Health 2024: 3.39; Safety and Security 2021: 3.61; Safety and Security 2022: 3.53; Safety and Security 2024: 3.57; Social Connections 2021: 2.96; Social Connections 2022: 3.14; Social Connections 2024: 2.92; Transportation 2024: 2.75

Community Connection in Price

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Price on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.68. Carbonville had statistically higher community connection scores than Price.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Price. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Price as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 19% of respondents; 2: 30% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 20% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 8% of respondents

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

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Price. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2021: 2.90; 2022: 2.93; 2024: 2.68

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Price. Data — Of the 28 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 96% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 4% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 93 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 123 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 72% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 47 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 28% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 72% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Price. Data — Of the 12 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 92% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 8% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 33 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 2, 94% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 6% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 96 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 82% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 18% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 93 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 70% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 44 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 34% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 66% 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. Price ranked 44 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 (88%), community events (86%), and recreating in parks in your city (74%).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in Price. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 88% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 86% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 74% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 71% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 68% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 67% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 60% of respondents indicated yes to 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; 4% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

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

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The largest proportion of respondents in Price indicated that they felt the population growth was just right (40%). For the pace of economic development, the majority of respondents indicated that it was too slow (76%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Price. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Price? Data — Too Slow: 26% of respondents; Just Right: 40% of respondents; Too Fast: 18% of respondents; No Opinion: 15% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Price. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Price? Data — Too Slow: 76% of respondents; Just Right: 12% of respondents; Too Fast: 3% of respondents; No Opinion: 9% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Price have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. The largest proportion of respondents have consistently indicated that the rate of population growth is just right, with a small increase from 2022 to 2024. The majority of respondents have consistently indicated that the pace of economic development is too slow.

Line Graph. Title: Price Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2021: 31.8% rated too slow, 45.8% rated just right, 9.4% rated too fast; 2022: 24.1% rated too slow, 33.0% rated just right, 29.9% rated too fast; 2024: 26.4% rated too slow, 40.0% rated just right, 18.3% rated too fast

Line Graph. Title: Price Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2021: 75.0% rated too slow, 17.0% rated just right, 1.1% rated too fast; 2022: 71.3% rated too slow, 17.9% rated just right, 2.2% rated too fast; 2024: 76.1% rated too slow, 12.2% rated just right, 3.1% rated too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Price 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 Price. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Price? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 255; No opinion: 22; Too fast: 8; Just right: 31; Too slow: 194; 'Too fast' without comment: 2; 'Too fast' with comment: 6; 'Too slow' without comment: 38; 'Too slow' with comment: 156

The 76% 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 Price. Comments focused on the need for employment and industry, particularly with the decline of coal. There were also many calls for retail business development in Price. Planning and governance and rejuvenation of Main Street and the need for additional amenities and services were also mentioned.

Additionally, the 3% 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 Price. The few comments related to affordability and the cost of housing.

Transportation in Price

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in Price. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (98%) and walking (29%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in Price. 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; 29% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 9% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 5% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 0% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device; 0% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 0% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft)

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Price. The most problematic barriers were Cost (53%) and Travel time (36%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Price. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 47% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 53% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 64% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 36% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 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: Lack of routes - 78% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 22% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 81% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 19% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 90% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 10% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 92% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 8% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 97% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 3% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a set of possible transportation developments in Price. The most important development to respondents were Improving road surfaces (87%), Enhancing safety (63%), and Improving walkability (59%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in Price. 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 - 13% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 87% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Enhancing safety - 37% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 63% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 41% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 59% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 46% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 54% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 49% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 51% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 52% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 48% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 58% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 42% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of Price 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 (71%), Friends and Family (68%), and Other Services (66%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of Price Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of Price to another city or town? Data — Category: Eating Out - 29% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 71% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Friends and Family - 32% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 68% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 34% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 66% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Groceries - 44% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 56% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 46% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 54% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 48% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 52% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 64% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 36% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 83% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 17% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 89% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 11% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns in Price

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Price. Opportunities for Youth (88%), Employment Opportunities (86%), and Affordable Housing (85%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about public safety (+16%), recreation opportunities (+15%), access to health care (+12%), and shopping opportunities (+10%) notably increased, while concern about substance misuse (-13%) and water supply (-12%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Price. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Price, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Opportunities for Youth - 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Open Comments

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

What Respondents Value Most in Price

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Price. 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. Price respondents indicated they highly value the small town feel of their community, appreciating its manageable size, low traffic, and the peaceful, slower-paced lifestyle it affords. They mentioned that they enjoy the proximity to natural landscapes and recreational activities, as well as the ease of commuting and lack of congestion. Many respondents also indicated that they value the sense of community, noting being close to family and friendly neighbors.

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

Local Environmental Quality in Price

The 52% 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. Most of the comments focused on trash and lack of cleanliness of the town as well as roads with potholes, dirty parks, and an abundance of trash. There was also an expressed desire and need for more parks and green spaces, particularly more trees and plants in general.

Improving Wellbeing in Price

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Price. Comments expressed a need for reliable public transportation, improved road safety, and better pedestrian infrastructure. Economic concerns included a lack of well-paying jobs and affordable housing, with calls for both local and external business investments to boost job opportunities and financial stability. Respondents also mentioned that they seek more recreational facilities and community events to foster a sense of belonging and improve quality of life.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Price. Respondents expressed significant concerns about substance misuse, with many highlighting the prevalent drug problems and the lack of sufficient activities to engage youth and deter them from substance abuse. Additionally, there was a strong call for local opportunities, including improved recreational facilities such as reservoirs and sports complexes, and a push for economic growth with better job prospects and community engagement initiatives. Residents also voiced frustrations with local government, critiquing its priorities and resource allocations, and calling for more effective policies to address pressing issues like substance abuse and economic decline.

On This Page