Heber 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

Heber 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 Heber survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In March 2026, Heber 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?

  • 206 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The Heber 2024 survey had 437 responses.
  • The adult population of Heber was estimated at 12,219, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 206 survey responses in 2026 represent 1.7% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.77%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Heber 97.6%
Part Time Residents of Heber 2.4%
Length of Residency — Range 1-70 years
Length of Residency — Average 21.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 17 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 15.0%

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 Heber. People who are age 60-69, have at least a 4-year college degree, or are married were overrepresented, while those who are age 18-29, do not have a college degree, are Hispanic or Latino, or have children under 18 in their household were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Heber 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 29%, UWS: 4%; Age 30-39: ACS: 20%, UWS: 9%; Age 40-49: ACS: 22%, UWS: 20%; Age 50-59: ACS: 14%, UWS: 22%; Age 60-69: ACS: 8%, UWS: 29%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 8%, UWS: 15%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 5%, UWS: 1%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 9%, UWS: 8%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 19%, UWS: 14%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 14%, UWS: 14%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 23%, UWS: 21%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 31%, UWS: 43%; Adult Female: ACS: 48%, UWS: 57%; Adult Male: ACS: 52%, UWS: 40%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 3%; Employed: ACS: 74%, UWS: 60%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 2%, UWS: 1%; Other: ACS: 24%, UWS: 38%; No College Degree: ACS: 54%, UWS: 36%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 46%, UWS: 64%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 18%, UWS: 9%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 82%, UWS: 91%; Married: ACS: 61%, UWS: 84%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 51%, UWS: 29%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 8%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 20%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 18%, UWS: 2%; Nonwhite: ACS: 21%, UWS: 8%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 42%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 22%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 36%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Heber

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Heber. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Heber was 4.19 with 85% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Heber was 3.51 with 55% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Heber. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 12% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 37% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Heber. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Heber? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 11% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 40% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 15% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Heber 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 improved. 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 Heber. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.42; Community Wellbeing 2026: 3.51; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 4.01; Personal Wellbeing 2026: 4.19

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. Heber is classified as a Rural Hub/Resort Community. 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 Rural city cluster, Heber was above the average overall personal wellbeing score and close to 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 Heber

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 Heber were Safety and Security (87%), Mental Health (85%), Family Life (84%), and Living Standards (84%). The most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (98%), Safety and Security (95%), Physical Health (94%), and Living Standards (94%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Heber. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 13% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 87% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 15% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 85% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Family Life - 16% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 84% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Living Standards - 16% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 84% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 26% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 74% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 26% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 74% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 27% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 73% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 39% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 61% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 42% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 58% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 42% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 58% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 53% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 47% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 63% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 37% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Heber. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Mental Health - 2% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 98% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Safety and Security - 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: Living Standards - 6% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 94% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Physical Health - 6% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 94% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Family Life - 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: Local Environmental Quality - 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: Leisure Time -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: Connection with Nature -14% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 86% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections -31% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 69% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -39% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 61% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Transportation -43% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 57% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -48% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 52% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Heber

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Heber residents. The number of respondents changed over time. Since 2024, almost all domain ratings increased, except for Connection with Nature and Physical Health which remained nearly the same.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Heber. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2024: 4.09; Connection with Nature 2026: 4.07; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 3.03; Cultural Opportunities 2026: 3.20; Education 2024: 3.24; Education 2026: 3.42; Family Life 2024: 4.12; Family Life 2026: 4.29; Leisure Time 2024: 3.84; Leisure Time 2026: 4.03; Living Standards 2024: 3.85; Living Standards 2026: 4.20; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.58; Local Environmental Quality 2026: 3.68; Mental Health 2024: 4.04; Mental Health 2026: 4.24; Physical Health 2024: 3.97; Physical Health 2026: 3.99; Safety and Security 2024: 4.13; Safety and Security 2026: 4.35; Social Connections 2024: 3.44; Social Connections 2026: 3.65; Transportation 2024: 3.34; Transportation 2026: 3.69

Wellbeing Matrix for Heber

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

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

Community Connection in Heber

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Heber on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.23.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Heber. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Heber as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 26% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% of respondents

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

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Heber. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2024: 3.01; 2026: 3.23

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Heber. Data — Of the 5 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 22 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 91% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 9% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 82 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 59% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 72 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 44% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Heber. Data — Of the 8 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 2, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 20 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 70% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 72 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 62% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 79 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 48% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% 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. Heber ranked 28 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 Heber

Survey participants were asked how well Heber 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 (26%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Heber. Subtitle: How well does Heber include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 5% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 26% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 26% of respondents; 4 Fully: 7% 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%), Gardening at home (74%), and Using trails in or near your city (73%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Heber. 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: Gardening at home - 26% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 74% 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 - 27% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 73% 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: Recreating in parks in your city - 43% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 57% 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 - 48% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 52% 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 - 55% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 45% 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 - 61% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 39% 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 all activities except use of trails in or near your city.

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 Heber respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Heber. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 10% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 90% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 34% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 66% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 38% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 62% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 87% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 13% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Heber indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (89%). For the pace of economic development, the majority of respondents indicated that it was too fast (61%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Heber. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Heber? Data — Too Slow: 1% of respondents; Just Right: 8% of respondents; Too Fast: 89% of respondents; No Opinion: 2% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Heber. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Heber? Data — Too Slow: 21% of respondents; Just Right: 11% of respondents; Too Fast: 61% of respondents; No Opinion: 7% of respondents

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

Line Graph. Title: Heber Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2024: 0% rated it too slow, 7% just right, and 90% too fast; 2026: 0.6% rated it too slow, 8% just right, and 89% too fast

Line Graph. Title: Heber Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2024: 22% rated it too slow, 20% just right, and 49% too fast; 2026: 21% rated it too slow, 11% just right, and 61% too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Heber compared to other participating cities and towns in the Rural Hub/Resort Communities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Rural Hub/Resort Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Heber - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% just right, 89% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Midway - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 14% just right, 86% too fast, and 0% had no opinion; City: Tremonton - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 11% just right, 83% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Morgan - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 20% just right, 75% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Nephi - 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% just right, 71% too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Moab - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 60% too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Vernal - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 29% just right, 56% too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Richfield - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 45% just right, 46% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Manila - 26% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% just right, 38% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Springdale - 4% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% just right, 32% too fast, and 23% had no opinion; City: Alta - 9% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 45% just right, 23% too fast, and 23% had no opinion; City: Blanding - 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 51% just right, 17% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Wendover - 40% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% just right, 13% too fast, and 20% had no opinion; City: Bluff - 22% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 54% just right, 8% too fast, and 16% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Rural Hub/Resort Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Heber - 21% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 11% just right, 61% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Midway - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 39% just right, 55% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Springdale - 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% just right, 52% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Moab - 33% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 13% just right, 48% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Tremonton - 48% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 10% just right, 38% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Nephi - 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% just right, 37% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Morgan - 34% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 27% too fast, and 16% had no opinion; City: Vernal - 37% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% just right, 23% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Alta - 17% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 43% just right, 22% too fast, and 17% had no opinion; City: Manila - 51% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% just right, 15% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Richfield - 49% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 36% just right, 10% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Bluff - 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 49% just right, 8% too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Blanding - 62% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 26% just right, 4% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Wendover - 73% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 17% just right, 3% too fast, and 7% 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 a more balanced approach to growth and development, with many highlighting the need for slower growth rates and more consideration given to the community’s wellbeing. They noted that unchecked growth has led to increased costs of living, traffic congestion, and a loss of rural character. Some also emphasized the importance of preserving open spaces and natural areas, while others suggested that more attention should be paid to supporting local businesses and families. Additionally, respondents felt that the city council and developers were not adequately listening to their concerns and needs, leading to a sense of frustration and disconnection from the community.

Cost of Living in Heber

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Heber. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (70%) and Housing (49%). Note that a high percentage (77%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Heber. 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 - 77% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 70% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 30% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 5% 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: Healthcare - 2% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 38% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 62% 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, 34% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 66% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Food - 1% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 25% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 75% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 16% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 15% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 85% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Heber

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Heber. The most problematic barriers were Cost (46%) and Travel time (42%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Heber. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 54% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 46% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 58% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 42% 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 - 82% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 18% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 82% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 18% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 89% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 11% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 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 - 94% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 6% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Concerns in Heber

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Heber. Traffic (87%), Open Space/Green Space (85%), and Water Supply (84%) were the top concerns. Since 2024, moderate or major concern about the Great Salt Lake (+19%) notably increased, while concern about shopping opportunities (-22%), public safety (-20%), recreation opportunities (-16%), access to healthy/quality food (-16%), and social and emotional support (-16%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Heber. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Heber, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Traffic - 13% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 87% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 15% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 85% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 75% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 25% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 75% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 25% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Use - 75% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 25% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 79% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 21% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 86% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 14% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for Heber

Heber City also asked a few additional questions in the survey. Respondents were asked if they felt like the community provides enough creative activities outside of school events for families and youth. Among all respondents, 47% of respondents said yes, 28% said no, and 25% were undecided. Among those with children under 18 in the household, 51% said yes, 37% said no, and 12% were undecided.

Bar Chart. Title: Do you fell the community provides enough creative activities outside of school events for families and youth? Data — All Respondents: Yes - 47%, No - 28%, Undecided 25%. Those with children under 18 in the household: Yes - 51%, No - 37%, Undecided 12%

Respondents were asked if Heber City should adopt city code to require dark sky compliant exterior lighting on all homes and businesses to minimize light pollution. The majority of respondents said yes (58%).

Bar Chart. Title: Should Heber City adopt city code to require dark sky compliant exterior lighting on all homes and businesses to minimize light pollution?. Data — Yes: 58% of respondents; No: 29% of respondents; Undecided: 13% of respondents

Respondents were asked if Heber City should adopt a ‘no idling’ ordinance and enforce it. Respondents were split between yes (36%) and no (43%).

Bar Chart. Title: Should Heber City adopt a 'no idling' ordinance and enforce it?. Data — Yes: 36% of respondents; No: 43% of respondents; Undecided: 22% of respondents

Respondents were asked if Heber City should support building an All-Abilities Playground. The majority of respondents said yes (70%).

Bar Chart. Title: Should Heber City support building an All-Abilities Playground?. Data — Yes: 70% of respondents; No: 13% of respondents; Undecided: 17% of respondents

Respondents were asked what water conservation policies they would support the City using if a drought state continues into summer 2026. The most supported answers were time-based efficiency rules (89%), and using less water at city parks & cemetery (79%). Respondents also wrote in other water conservation measures, including restricting new development, replacing grass with drought-tolerant alternatives, regulating water-usage for golf courses and agriculture, changes to water usage pricing, and increased educational awareness.

Likert Graph. Title: If a drought state continues into summer 2026, do you support the City using any of the following water conservation policies:. Data — Strategy: City-wide mandated water restrictions for homes and businesses depending on drought level 24% of respondents indicated no, 62% indicated yes, and 13% were undecided; Strategy: Requiring the use of more xeriscaping or zeroscaping in yard landscaping 36% of respondents indicated no, 47% indicated yes, and 17% were undecided; Strategy: Time-based efficiency rules such as 'Water before 10 am and after 7 pm in the City' 8% of respondents indicated no, 89% indicated yes, and 3% were undecided; Strategy: Using less water at city parks & cemetery 13% of respondents indicated no, 79% indicated yes, and 8% were undecided

Respondents were asked if they, their family, and their friends would be interested in participating in any of the community events listed below to feel more connected to the Heber City community. The most interested activities and events included outdoor skill shares (72%), live music (69%), cultural nights with food, dancing, and entertainment (68%), Citywide Service Saturdays (67%), neighborhood block parties (66%), and food truck courts (66%). A handful of respondents also wrote in other ideas such as a wider variety of live music genres, Christmas markets, food drives, issue forums, community agriculture, farmer’s markets, and the rec center open on Sunday. A handful of responses asked that no activities or events be provided by the government.

Likert Graph. Title: Please indicate if you, your family, and friends would be interested in participating in any of the community events listed below to feel more connected to the Heber City community. Data — Event: Art walks — 42% of respondents indicated no, 58% indicated yes; Event: Citywide Service Saturdays: clean up for Main Street, Parks & trails, Senior yard help — 33% of respondents indicated no, 67% indicated yes; Event: Clubs (book, quilting, gardening, crafting, etc.) — 39% of respondents indicated no, 61% indicated yes; Event: Community bike rides — 66% of respondents indicated no, 34% indicated yes; Event: Community dances — 65% of respondents indicated no, 35% indicated yes; Event: Community hikes — 59% of respondents indicated no, 41% indicated yes; Event: Community snowshoeing — 64% of respondents indicated no, 36% indicated yes; Event: Community tournaments (e.g. pickleball, etc.) — 55% of respondents indicated no, 45% indicated yes; Event: Community walking clubs — 62% of respondents indicated no, 38% indicated yes; Event: Craft demos — 47% of respondents indicated no, 53% indicated yes; Event: Cultural nights with food, dancing, entertainment — 32% of respondents indicated no, 68% indicated yes; Event: Family game nights — 70% of respondents indicated no, 30% indicated yes; Event: Food truck courts — 34% of respondents indicated no, 66% indicated yes; Event: Heber storytelling series — 55% of respondents indicated no, 45% indicated yes; Event: Live music — 31% of respondents indicated no, 69% indicated yes; Event: Local artist nights — 38% of respondents indicated no, 62% indicated yes; Event: Neighborhood block parties — 34% of respondents indicated no, 66% indicated yes; Event: Newcomer socials hosted by long-time residents — 62% of respondents indicated no, 38% indicated yes; Event: Other — 74% of respondents indicated no, 26% indicated yes; Event: Outdoor movies — 49% of respondents indicated no, 51% indicated yes; Event: Outdoor skill shares (fly fishing, gardening, etc.) — 28% of respondents indicated no, 72% indicated yes; Event: Pop-up galleries — 43% of respondents indicated no, 57% indicated yes

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for using open space funds generated through future bonds or fees to acquire land for parks, trail corridors, and public recreation areas. Overall, 78% of respondents indicated that they support or strongly support this use of funds. Additionally, 61% of respondents said they support or strongly support using open space funds to purchase conservation easements on privately owned agricultural land.

Likert Graph. Title: Please indicate your level of support for the use of open space funds from any future bond or fees for the following. Data — Item: Buy conservation easements on private agricultural land — 15% of respondents indicated they oppose or strongly oppose it, 24% indicated they neither support nor oppose it, and 61% indicated they support or strongly support it; Item: Purchase land for parks, trail corridors, and public recreation — 12% of respondents indicated they oppose or strongly oppose it, 10% indicated they neither support nor oppose it, and 78% indicated they support or strongly support it

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 Heber

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Heber. 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 valued Heber’s natural beauty, small-town feel, and proximity to outdoor recreation opportunities. They appreciated the community’s slow pace of life, friendly atmosphere, and scenic surroundings, which provide a peaceful environment for family activities. Many comments emphasized the importance of preserving the area’s open space and rural character, highlighting the need to balance development with preservation of natural areas and wildlife habitats. Alongside many comments of appreciation for Heber’s “small town feel”, there was also significant concern from respondents about how quickly Heber is changing and the possible loss of the small town they once knew.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Heber includes: small town, community, people, town feel, rural, beautiful, mountains, nature, close, and open space.

Local Environmental Quality in Heber

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Heber. Respondents mentioned negative impacts of rapid growth and development on air quality, water availability, and natural beauty. Respondents expressed worry about the increase in traffic congestion, which they believed was worsening air pollution and noise levels. Some also noted the strain that population growth is putting on the valley’s water resources, citing concerns about sustainability and the need for better planning to ensure a healthy balance between development and environmental protection.

Improving Wellbeing in Heber

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Heber. Respondents in Heber were concerned about the rapid growth and development in the area, citing issues with traffic, housing affordability, and preservation of natural spaces. Many emphasized the need for a bypass road to alleviate traffic congestion on Main Street and improve safety. Some suggested improving bike and walking trails, while others valued efforts to reduce water consumption and promote environmental sustainability.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Heber. Many respondents expressed concerns about the rapid growth and development in the area, feeling that it is eroding the community’s unique character and sense of well-being. They highlighted the need for better planning and management to balance economic development with environmental preservation and community values. Some also emphasized the importance of preserving the city’s small-town charm and resisting over-commercialization, while others suggested improving recreational opportunities, public services, and infrastructure to enhance the quality of life in Heber.

On This Page