Cedar City Wellbeing Survey Findings 2026

By Dr. Courtney Flint, Nicolas Holden, and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Cedar City is one of 57 cities and towns participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2026. 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 make this possible. A special thank you goes to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the following cities for funding this project: Cedar City, Delta, Heber, La Verkin, South Weber, Vernal, West Bountiful, and West Valley City. We also acknowledge support from the Institute for Disability Research, Policy & Practice (IDRPP).

This report describes findings from the 2026 Cedar City survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In March 2026, Cedar City advertised the survey for residents. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey. Cities and towns generally advertised the survey through newsletters, social media, emails, or other various efforts.

How many people responded?

  • 201 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The Cedar City 2024 survey had 762 responses and the Cedar City 2020 survey had 262 responses.
  • The adult population of Cedar City was estimated at 28,618, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 201 survey responses in 2026 represent 0.7% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.89%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Cedar City 97.0%
Part Time Residents of Cedar City 3.0%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5-66 years
Length of Residency — Average 14.6 years
Length of Residency — Median 10 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 32.3%
City Area Percent
84720 57.2%
84721 42.8%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2020-2024 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, 2026 survey respondents were not fully representative of Cedar City. People who have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, or own their homes were overrepresented, while those who are age 18-29, do not have a college degree, or are renters were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Cedar City 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 39%, UWS: 16%; Age 30-39: ACS: 16%, UWS: 27%; Age 40-49: ACS: 13%, UWS: 20%; Age 50-59: ACS: 10%, UWS: 17%; Age 60-69: ACS: 11%, UWS: 13%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 11%, UWS: 8%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 17%, UWS: 6%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 20%, UWS: 16%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 20%, UWS: 22%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 15%, UWS: 18%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 14%, UWS: 26%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 14%, UWS: 11%; Adult Female: ACS: 50%, UWS: 63%; Adult Male: ACS: 50%, UWS: 37%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 1%; Employed: ACS: 64%, UWS: 64%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 3%, UWS: 3%; Other: ACS: 34%, UWS: 33%; No College Degree: ACS: 64%, UWS: 31%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 36%, UWS: 69%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 43%, UWS: 28%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 57%, UWS: 72%; Married: ACS: 47%, UWS: 71%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 34%, UWS: 46%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 15%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 27%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 14%, UWS: 8%; Nonwhite: ACS: 17%, UWS: 10%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 38%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 26%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 37%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Cedar City

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Cedar City. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Cedar City was 3.80 with 69% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Cedar City was 3.23 with 38% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 25% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 19% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Cedar City? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 42% of respondents; 4: 28% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 9% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Cedar City over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that from 2024 to 2026, both the average personal wellbeing score and the average community wellbeing score declined. Note that the number of respondents differed between years, and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Cedar City. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2020: 3.56; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.42; Community Wellbeing 2026: 3.23; Personal Wellbeing 2020: 3.99; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 3.94; Personal Wellbeing 2026: 3.80

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

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

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.73; Ogden Average Score 3.80; West Jordan Average Score 4.00; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Sandy Average Score 4.23; South Jordan Average Score 4.25; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.66; Logan Average Score 3.79; Cedar City Average Score 3.80; Woods Cross Average Score 4.03; Murray Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.07; South Ogden Average Score 4.16; West Bountiful Average Score 4.20; Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Lindon Average Score 4.23; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.27; Alpine Average Score 4.35; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.35; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Lehi Average Score 3.88; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.92; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.95; Grantsville Average Score 3.97; Mapleton Average Score 4.00; Wellsville Average Score 4.04; Enoch Average Score 4.08; Herriman Average Score 4.08; Bluffdale Average Score 4.16; Kamas Average Score 4.19; Kaysville Average Score 4.19; South Weber Average Score 4.20; Providence Average Score 4.26; Uintah City Average Score 4.34; Ivins Average Score 4.45; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 3.67; Tremonton Average Score 3.72; Vernal Average Score 3.75; Blanding Average Score 3.78; Moab Average Score 3.81; Bluff Average Score 3.98; Richfield Average Score 3.99; Nephi Average Score 4.01; Manila Average Score 4.13; Heber Average Score 4.19; Morgan Average Score 4.23; Springdale Average Score 4.27; Midway Average Score 4.38; Alta Average Score 4.44; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Delta Average Score 3.77; Ferron Average Score 3.89; Stockton Average Score 3.92; Orangeville Average Score 3.96; La Verkin Average Score 3.97; Lake Point Average Score 4.13; Lewiston Average Score 4.22; Toquerville Average Score 4.24; Mayfield Average Score 4.27

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.19; West Valley City Average Score 3.22; West Jordan Average Score 3.53; Millcreek Average Score 3.81; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.06; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.06; Cedar City Average Score 3.23; Logan Average Score 3.42; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.71; Woods Cross Average Score 3.74; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.81; Murray Average Score 3.86; Bountiful Average Score 3.93; South Ogden Average Score 3.99; Alpine Average Score 4.04; West Bountiful Average Score 4.06; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.16; Lindon Average Score 4.24; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Grantsville Average Score 3.08; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.29; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.38; Kamas Average Score 3.50; Lehi Average Score 3.56; Herriman Average Score 3.66; Enoch Average Score 3.69; Mapleton Average Score 3.71; South Weber Average Score 3.75; Bluffdale Average Score 3.78; Wellsville Average Score 3.93; Kaysville Average Score 3.95; Ivins Average Score 4.00; Providence Average Score 4.03; Uintah City Average Score 4.13; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 2.92; Tremonton Average Score 2.94; Moab Average Score 3.12; Vernal Average Score 3.21; Blanding Average Score 3.33; Heber Average Score 3.51; Manila Average Score 3.51; Nephi Average Score 3.51; Richfield Average Score 3.57; Springdale Average Score 3.71; Bluff Average Score 3.80; Morgan Average Score 3.89; Alta Average Score 4.15; Midway Average Score 4.24; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Stockton Average Score 3.30; Delta Average Score 3.35; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Lake Point Average Score 3.62; Orangeville Average Score 3.72; Ferron Average Score 3.76; Toquerville Average Score 3.83; Lewiston Average Score 3.99; Mayfield Average Score 4.08

Wellbeing Domains in Cedar City

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. Survey respondents rated twelve domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Cedar City were Safety and Security (77%), Family Life (73%), Mental Health (69%), Connection with Nature (68%), and Physical Health (68%). The most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (97%), Physical Health (95%), Safety and Security (91%), Local Environmental Quality (90%), and Connection with Nature (90%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 23% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 77% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Family Life - 27% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 73% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 31% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 69% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 32% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 68% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 32% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 68% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Living Standards - 34% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 66% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 41% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 59% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 42% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 58% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 48% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 52% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 50% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 50% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 53% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 47% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 66% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 34% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Cedar City. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 97% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 95% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Safety and Security - 9% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 91% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Connection with Nature -10% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 90% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -10% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 90% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Living Standards -12% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 88% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Family Life -15% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 85% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Leisure Time -16% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 84% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -27% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 73% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections -32% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 68% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -42% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 58% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Transportation -42% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 58% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Cedar City

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Cedar City residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Since 2024, Safety and Security, Physical Health, Living Standards, and Transportation improved, while Connection with Nature, Education, Leisure Time, Local Environmental Quality, and Cultural Opportunities decreased, and Family Life, Mental Health, and Social Connections remained nearly the same.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Cedar City. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2020: 4.03; Connection with Nature 2024: 3.99; Connection with Nature 2026: 3.87; Cultural Opportunities 2020: 3.56; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 3.40; Cultural Opportunities 2026: 3.07; Education 2020: 3.90; Education 2024: 3.84; Education 2026: 3.73; Family Life 2024: 4.08; Family Life 2026: 4.02; Leisure Time 2020: 3.67; Leisure Time 2024: 3.77; Leisure Time 2026: 3.60; Living Standards 2020: 3.86; Living Standards 2024: 3.61; Living Standards 2026: 3.75; Local Environmental Quality 2020: 3.98; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.72; Local Environmental Quality 2026: 3.40; Mental Health 2020: 3.69; Mental Health 2024: 3.85; Mental Health 2026: 3.84; Physical Health 2020: 3.64; Physical Health 2024: 3.67; Physical Health 2026: 3.87; Safety and Security 2020: 3.95; Safety and Security 2024: 3.87; Safety and Security 2026: 4.01; Social Connections 2020: 3.50; Social Connections 2024: 3.39; Social Connections 2026: 3.41; Transportation 2024: 3.18; Transportation 2026: 3.43

Wellbeing Matrix for Cedar City

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

Scatterplot. Title: Cedar City Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Family Life, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security; High rating, lower importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Social Connections, and Transportation; Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time and Local Environmental Quality

Community Connection in Cedar City

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Cedar City on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.98.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Cedar City. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Cedar City as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 12% of respondents; 2: 19% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 10% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Cedar City over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score declined between 2024 and 2026.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Cedar City. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2020: 3.15; 2024: 3.11; 2026: 2.98

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 Cedar City. Data — Of the 10 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 42 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 85 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 35 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing 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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Cedar City. Data — Of the 14 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 2, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 38 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 87% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 13% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 75 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 69% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 41 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 49% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% 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 “1 Not at all” to “5 A great deal” connected to their city or town. Cedar City ranked 46 out of the 57 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 35% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 65% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Uintah City 39% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 61% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 40% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 60% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lindon 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alta 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Midway 45% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 55% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Morgan 46% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Murray 49% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 50% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kamas 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ogden 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ivins 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Moab 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mayfield 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wendover 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ferron 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Delta 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Springdale 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Richfield 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Orangeville 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Weber 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lewiston 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Heber 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Manila 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Nephi 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Enoch 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 61% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 39% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Sandy 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Toquerville 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kaysville 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Logan 64% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Vernal 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bluffdale 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Blanding 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Herriman 66% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Providence 67% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lake Point 68% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 69% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Woods Cross 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 71% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tooele 73% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 27% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Stockton 74% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lehi 75% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 76% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Eagle Mountain 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Grantsville 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5

Disability in Cedar City

Survey participants were asked how well Cedar City included individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities. The largest proportion of respondents indicated they had no opinion or that the question was not relevant (36%). For those expressing an opinion, respondents were split between opinions that they were somewhat (26%) or quite well (21%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Cedar City. Subtitle: How well does Cedar City include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 12% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 26% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 21% of respondents; 4 Fully: 5% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 36% of respondents

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they participated in various activities over the past year. The activities in which respondents most commonly participated at least sometimes (about once a month or more frequently) were Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (87%), Using trails in or near your city (80%), and Recreating in parks in your city (78%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Cedar City. Subtitle: How often have you participated in any of the following activities over the past year? Data — Category: Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city - 13% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 87% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Using trails in or near your city - 20% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 80% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Recreating in parks in your city - 22% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 78% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Gardening at home - 29% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 71% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 31% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 69% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Community events - 34% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 66% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Buying food from a farmer's market - 47% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 53% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: City recreation programs - 59% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 41% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 64% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 36% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week)

Higher levels of community connection correlated with more frequent participation in community events, participation in city recreation programs, recreation in parks in your city, walking or biking in your neighborhood or city, use of trails in or near your city, and shopping at a farmer’s market.

Wellbeing and Urban/Rural Settings

Respondents were asked to indicate how important spending time in the different settings were to their wellbeing. The most important setting for Cedar City respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Cedar City. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 14% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 86% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 47% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 53% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 60% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 40% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 86% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 14% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Cedar City indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (80%). For the pace of economic development, respondents were split between opinions that it was too fast (42%) and too slow (33%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Cedar City? Data — Too Slow: 2% of respondents; Just Right: 15% of respondents; Too Fast: 80% of respondents; No Opinion: 4% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Cedar City. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Cedar City? Data — Too Slow: 33% of respondents; Just Right: 17% of respondents; Too Fast: 42% of respondents; No Opinion: 9% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Cedar City have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys.

Line Graph. Title: Cedar City Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 2% rated it too slow, 43% just right, and 46% too fast; 2024: 1% rated it too slow, 15% just right, and 80% too fast; 2026: 2% rated it too slow, 15% just right, and 80% too fast

Line Graph. Title: Cedar City Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 44% rated it too slow, 39% just right, and 9% too fast; 2024: 43% rated it too slow, 22% just right, and 27% too fast; 2026: 33% rated it too slow, 17% just right, and 42% too fast

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

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Established/Mid-sized Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Tooele - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 13% just right, 81% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 15% just right, 80% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Logan - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 14% just right, 73% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Alpine - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 67% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: South Ogden - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% just right, 62% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Murray - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% just right, 61% too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 54% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Lindon - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% just right, 53% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 31% just right, 52% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights - 6% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 50% too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 39% just right, 46% too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Woods Cross - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 44% just right, 45% too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 61% just right, 27% too fast, and 11% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Established/Mid-sized Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Tooele - 27% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 20% just right, 44% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Cedar City - 33% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 17% just right, 42% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Logan - 32% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 32% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Murray - 17% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% just right, 30% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Cottonwood Heights - 21% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 37% just right, 29% too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Lindon - 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 49% just right, 29% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: South Ogden - 23% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 29% too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Cedar Hills - 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 55% just right, 25% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Alpine - 24% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% just right, 25% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: West Bountiful - 9% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 52% just right, 24% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Woods Cross - 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 45% just right, 20% too fast, and 15% had no opinion; City: Bountiful - 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% just right, 19% too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: North Salt Lake - 31% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% just right, 14% too fast, and 17% had no opinion

Survey respondents were asked if there are any aspects of the local economy they would like to see changed in the next five years. Respondents expressed a desire for more affordable housing options, with many noting that the cost of living has left locals feeling like they are being priced out of their own community. There was also a sense of frustration with rapid growth and development in Cedar City, with some calling for a slower pace of building and more emphasis on infrastructure and green spaces. Additionally, respondents emphasized the need for better paying jobs and job opportunities that align with the cost of living, as well as a focus on supporting local businesses and community needs over large corporations and chain stores.

Cost of Living in Cedar City

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Cedar City. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (76%), Healthcare (51%), and Housing (49%). Note that a high percentage (65%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Cedar City. Subtitle: How EASY or DIFFICULT is it for your household to COVER EXPENSES related to the following? Among respondents for whom each expense was relevant; 'Not relevant' shown separately. Data — Category: Childcare - 65% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 76% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 24% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Healthcare - 2% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 51% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 49% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 2% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 49% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 51% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Food - 0% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 41% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 59% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 18% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 27% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 73% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Utilities - 1% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 26% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 74% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Cedar City

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Cedar City. The most problematic barriers were Cost (55%) and Travel time (48%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Cedar City. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 45% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 55% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 52% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 48% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 70% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 30% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 72% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 28% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 80% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 20% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 85% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 15% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 90% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 10% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 96% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 4% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Concerns in Cedar City

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Cedar City. Water Supply (94%), Open Space/Green Space (80%), Wildfire (77%), Affordable Housing (77%), and Traffic (77%) were the top concerns. Since 2024, moderate or major concern about the Great Salt Lake (+19%), trails & paths (+16%), climate change (+15%), and open space/green space (+13%) notably increased, while concern about shopping opportunities (-27%), public safety (-18%), suicide (-15%), substance use (-12%), and social and emotional support (-12%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Cedar City. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Cedar City, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Water Supply - 6% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 94% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 66% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 34% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Use - 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 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 Treatment - 77% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 23% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for Cedar City

Methods of Communication in Cedar City

Survey participants were also asked a few additional questions in the survey. When asked about how they stay informed with what is happening in Cedar City, the most common responses were Social Media (81%), and Word of Mouth (78%).

Bar Graph. Title: How do you stay informed with what is happening in Cedar City?. Data — 81% of respondents indicated yes to Social Media; 78% of respondents indicated yes to Word of Mouth; 46% of respondents indicated yes to Signs Around Town; 43% of respondents indicated yes to Monthly Newsletter; 42% of respondents indicated yes to City Website; 41% of respondents indicated yes to Newspaper; 25% of respondents indicated yes to City Council Meetings; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Other

Likelihood to Recommend Cedar City as a Place to Live

Survey participants were asked about how likely they are to recommend Cedar City as a place to live to a friend on a scale from 0 (Not at all likely) to 10 (Extremely likely), which were then grouped according to groups defined by a Net Promoter Score where Detractors have scores 0-6, Passives have scores 7-8, and Promoters have scores 9-10. The Net Promoter Score (calculated by subtracting the % of Detractors from % of Promoters) for this question was -30 in 2026. The Net Promoter score declined between 2024 and 2026, primarily due to an increase in the share of Detractors from 39% to 51%.

Bar chart. Title: How likely are you to recommend Cedar City as a place to live to a friend? 2024 Net Score: -9. 2026 Net Score: -30. Detractors in 2024: 39, and 2026: 51%. Passives in 2024: 32%, and 2026: 28%. Promoters in 2024: 30%, and 2026: 21%

Satisfaction with Cedar City Services

Survey participants were also asked to rate their satisfaction with various Cedar City services on a scale from 1 (Not at all satisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied), with an option to say they had no opinion. The highest rated services with a 4 or 5 were Garbage Service (69%), City Library (64%), Fire Department (62%), and Heritage Theatre/Festival Hall (60%).

Likert Graph. Title: Satisfaction with Cedar City Services. Subtitle: Scale is rated from 1 - Not at all satisfied to 5 - Very satisfied Data — Category: Building & Zoning - 86% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 4%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 10% had no opinion; Category: City Hall Administration - 60% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 13%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 26% had no opinion; Category: City Library - 20% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 64%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 16% had no opinion; Category: City Parks - 45% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 50%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 5% had no opinion; Category: Communication Efforts - 62% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 30%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 8% had no opinion; Category: Fire Department - 11% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 62%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 27% had no opinion; Category: Garbage Service - 25% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 69%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 6% had no opinion; Category: Heritage Theatre/Festival Hall - 22% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 60%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 18% had no opinion; Category: Leisure Services Department - 52% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 31%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 18% had no opinion; Category: Police Department - 32% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 56%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 12% had no opinion; Category: Sponsored City Events - 39% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 51%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 10% had no opinion; Category: Street Maintenance - 59% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 37%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 4% had no opinion; Category: Water Service - 49% of respondents rated it as a 1, 2, or 3, while 38%% rated it as a 4 or 5, and 13% had no opinion

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here. The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including the Llama 3 large language model, accessed locally through Ollama, and a machine learning classifier, in the analysis of open comments. These tools were used for initial topical coding and draft summaries of comments. All comments, codes, and summaries were reviewed and edited by the authors for accuracy and clarity.

What Respondents Value Most in Cedar City

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Cedar City. The most common words and phrases from all 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 mentioned the small town feel and natural beauty of Cedar City as a major draw, with many emphasizing the community’s proximity to outdoor recreation opportunities, mountains, and trails. They valued the peaceful atmosphere, friendly people, and sense of connection with neighbors, which was often described as a strong and supportive community. While some comments noted concerns about growth and changes to the area, the majority of responses emphasized the appreciation for Cedar City’s unique character and the opportunity to enjoy nature, outdoor activities, and a slower pace of life.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Cedar City includes: small town, community, access, town feel, nature, opportunities, rural, trails, beautiful, and outdoors.

Local Environmental Quality in Cedar City

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Cedar City. Respondents mentioned a range of environmental concerns, particularly air quality and water scarcity. Many expressed frustration with the increasing density of development, citing concerns about loss of green spaces, noise pollution, and decreased air quality due to construction and industrial activities. Additionally, some respondents emphasized the need for better infrastructure planning, including improved roads, bike paths, and public transportation, to support growing populations. Respondents also mentioned concerns about possible data center construction and impacts on local environmental quality.

Improving Wellbeing in Cedar City

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Cedar City. Respondents suggested improving bike infrastructure, expanding public transportation, and increasing walkability throughout the city. Respondents also emphasized the importance of addressing traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air quality issues. There were concerns about the impact of rapid growth and development on the city’s character and sense of community, suggesting that more attention should be paid to preserving green spaces and historical areas.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Cedar City. Many respondents expressed concerns about Cedar City’s rapid growth, citing issues with traffic congestion, affordability, and the erosion of its small-town charm. Some noted that the influx of new residents has led to a loss of community character and a decline in affordable housing options. Others emphasized the need for better infrastructure, including roads, sidewalks, and public transportation, as well as more green spaces and recreational areas.

On This Page