Logan 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

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

  • 219 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The Logan 2024 survey had 757 responses, the Logan 2022 survey had 476 responses, and the Logan 2021 survey had 563 responses.
  • The adult population of Logan was estimated at 42,968, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 219 survey responses in 2026 represent 0.5% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.61%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Logan 97.3%
Part Time Residents of Logan 2.7%
Length of Residency — Range 0.7-55 years
Length of Residency — Average 16.9 years
Length of Residency — Median 13 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 25.8%
City Area Percent
Adams 19.2%
Bridger 14.2%
Ellis 11.9%
Hillcrest 12.8%
Wilson 16.9%
Woodruff 25.1%

A Map of Logan City Areas

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 Logan. People who are age 30-39, are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, have children under 18 in their household, or own their homes were overrepresented, while those who are age 18-29, are adult males, do not have a college degree, or are renters were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Logan 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 58%, UWS: 18%; Age 30-39: ACS: 15%, UWS: 31%; Age 40-49: ACS: 9%, UWS: 24%; Age 50-59: ACS: 7%, UWS: 15%; Age 60-69: ACS: 5%, UWS: 7%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 6%, UWS: 5%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 14%, UWS: 11%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 27%, UWS: 16%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 20%, UWS: 20%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 16%, UWS: 17%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 15%, UWS: 23%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 8%, UWS: 13%; Adult Female: ACS: 50%, UWS: 66%; Adult Male: ACS: 50%, UWS: 29%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 5%; Employed: ACS: 72%, UWS: 72%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 2%, UWS: 2%; Other: ACS: 26%, UWS: 25%; No College Degree: ACS: 60%, UWS: 42%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 40%, UWS: 58%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 63%, UWS: 36%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 37%, UWS: 64%; Married: ACS: 43%, UWS: 64%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 30%, UWS: 50%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 16%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 31%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 15%, UWS: 9%; Nonwhite: ACS: 22%, UWS: 7%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 36%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 17%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 46%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Logan

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Logan. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Logan was 3.79 with 67% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Logan was 3.42 with 51% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Logan? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 42% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 9% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Logan 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 Logan. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Community Wellbeing 2021: 3.46; Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.46; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.18; Community Wellbeing 2026: 3.42; Personal Wellbeing 2021: 3.81; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 3.89; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 3.66; Personal Wellbeing 2026: 3.79

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. Logan 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, Logan 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 Logan

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 Logan were Safety and Security (81%), Family Life (71%), and Mental Health (67%). The most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (97%), Safety and Security (94%), Living Standards (93%), and Physical Health (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Logan. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 19% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 81% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Family Life - 29% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 71% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 33% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 67% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 36% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 64% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Living Standards - 38% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 62% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 58% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 43% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 57% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 43% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 57% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 45% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 55% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 47% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 53% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 58% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 42% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 68% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 32% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Logan. 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: Safety and Security - 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: Living Standards - 7% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 93% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 93% 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: Local Environmental Quality -13% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 87% 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: 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: Social Connections -22% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 78% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -23% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 77% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -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: Transportation -34% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 66% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Logan

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

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Logan. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2021: 3.72; Connection with Nature 2022: 3.85; Connection with Nature 2024: 3.63; Connection with Nature 2026: 3.55; Cultural Opportunities 2021: 2.66; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 3.09; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 2.70; Cultural Opportunities 2026: 3.12; Education 2021: 3.73; Education 2022: 3.95; Education 2024: 3.55; Education 2026: 3.62; Family Life 2024: 3.72; Family Life 2026: 3.88; Leisure Time 2021: 3.39; Leisure Time 2022: 3.53; Leisure Time 2024: 3.25; Leisure Time 2026: 3.46; Living Standards 2021: 3.66; Living Standards 2022: 3.61; Living Standards 2024: 3.25; Living Standards 2026: 3.68; Local Environmental Quality 2021: 3.18; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 3.20; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.00; Local Environmental Quality 2026: 3.26; Mental Health 2021: 3.37; Mental Health 2022: 3.62; Mental Health 2024: 3.36; Mental Health 2026: 3.72; Physical Health 2021: 3.44; Physical Health 2022: 3.67; Physical Health 2024: 3.54; Physical Health 2026: 3.58; Safety and Security 2021: 3.98; Safety and Security 2022: 4.04; Safety and Security 2024: 3.82; Safety and Security 2026: 4.09; Social Connections 2021: 3.11; Social Connections 2022: 3.35; Social Connections 2024: 3.11; Social Connections 2026: 3.49; Transportation 2024: 3.47; Transportation 2026: 3.77

Wellbeing Matrix for Logan

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

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

Community Connection in Logan

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Logan on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.11.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Logan. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Logan as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 34% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 14% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Logan 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 Logan. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2021: 2.87; 2022: 2.98; 2024: 2.58; 2026: 3.11

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 Logan. Data — Of the 5 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 13 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 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, 74% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 75 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 47 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing 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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Logan. Data — Of the 7 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 17 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 2, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 34 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 74% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 82 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 61% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 41 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 46% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% 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. Logan ranked 38 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 Logan

Survey participants were asked how well Logan 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 (37%). For those expressing an opinion, the largest proportion of respondents felt that they were somewhat (29%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Logan. Subtitle: How well does Logan include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 8% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 29% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 19% of respondents; 4 Fully: 7% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 37% 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 (91%) and Recreating in parks in your city (79%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Logan. 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 - 9% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 91% 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 - 21% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 79% 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: Community events - 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: Gardening at home - 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: Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 38% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 62% 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 - 41% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 59% 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 - 57% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 43% 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 - 81% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 19% 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 participation in motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah.

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 Logan respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Logan. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 11% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 89% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 55% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 45% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 64% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 36% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 72% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 28% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Logan indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (73%). For the pace of economic development, respondents were split between opinions that it was too fast (32%), too slow (32%), and just right (24%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Logan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Logan? Data — Too Slow: 1% of respondents; Just Right: 14% of respondents; Too Fast: 73% of respondents; No Opinion: 12% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Logan. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Logan? Data — Too Slow: 32% of respondents; Just Right: 24% of respondents; Too Fast: 32% of respondents; No Opinion: 12% of respondents

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

Line Graph. Title: Logan Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2021: 3% rated it too slow, 26% just right, and 61% too fast; 2022: 2% rated it too slow, 17% just right, and 76% too fast; 2024: 2% rated it too slow, 18% just right, and 70% too fast; 2026: 1% rated it too slow, 14% just right, and 73% too fast

Line Graph. Title: Logan Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2021: 24% rated it too slow, 34% just right, and 30% too fast; 2022: 13% rated it too slow, 31% just right, and 51% too fast; 2024: 29% rated it too slow, 25% just right, and 34% too fast; 2026: 32% rated it too slow, 24% just right, and 32% too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Logan 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 emphasized a strong desire for more affordable housing options, with many expressing frustration at the high cost of living and strain on household budgets. They also mentioned the need for increased job opportunities, particularly those that pay a living wage, to support local economic stability. Additionally, respondents valued a balanced approach to growth, prioritizing thoughtful development over rapid expansion, and emphasized the importance of preserving Logan’s small-town character.

Cost of Living in Logan

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Logan. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (82%), Healthcare (47%), and Housing (46%). Note that a high percentage (69%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Logan. 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 - 69% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 82% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 18% 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, 47% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 53% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 4% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 46% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 54% 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, 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: Utilities - 2% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 32% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 68% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 6% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 18% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 82% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Logan

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Logan. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (56%) and Cost (55%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Logan. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Travel time - 44% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 56% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; 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: Lack of routes - 63% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 37% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 67% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 33% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 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: Safety - 81% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 19% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 86% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 14% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: 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 Logan

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Logan. Traffic (86%), Air Quality (83%), and Open Space/Green Space (82%) were the top concerns. Since 2024, moderate or major concern about the Great Salt Lake (+15%) notably increased, while concern about shopping opportunities (-17%), suicide (-12%), and substance use (-10%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Logan. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Logan, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Traffic - 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 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 - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 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 - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 70% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 30% 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

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 Logan

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Logan. 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 the natural beauty of their surroundings, with many mentioning the mountains, trails, and open spaces as a highlight of living in Logan. They also appreciated the community’s small-town feel, which provides a sense of familiarity and connection to others. Additionally, respondents mentioned enjoying the proximity to nature, with access to hiking trails, parks, and outdoor recreational activities just minutes away from their homes. Respondents spoke highly of public transportation in Logan, as well as having access to different cultural/community events.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Logan includes: community, close, mountains, nature, safety, trails, small town, opportunities, living, and life.

Local Environmental Quality in Logan

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Logan. Air quality was a significant concern for many respondents, particularly during winter inversions and forest fire smoke events. The poor air quality affects not only health but also wellbeing, with some respondents noting that it limits their ability to enjoy outdoor activities. Additionally, traffic congestion and a lack of walkability were mentioned as contributing factors to poor environmental quality. Some respondents emphasized the importance of preserving green spaces, promoting alternative transportation options, and prioritizing sustainability in development projects.

Improving Wellbeing in Logan

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Logan. Many respondents voiced a desire for improved public transportation, with many suggesting more frequent and reliable bus routes, as well as increased walkability and bikeability throughout the city. Additionally, there was a strong emphasis on preserving open, green spaces and reducing noise pollution, highlighting the importance of quality of life. Cost of living and low wages were a concern for many respondents, and others valued community events and activities that bring people together, with a desire for more festivals and cultural gatherings throughout the year, as well as developing a new Recreation Center for the community.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Logan. Many respondents expressed concerns about Logan’s growth and development, feeling that it is happening too quickly without adequate consideration for the community’s needs. Some noted the lack of affordable housing, while others emphasized the importance of addressing issues such as air quality, water management, and traffic congestion. Additionally, several individuals highlighted the need to support families and children, improve recreational opportunities, and prioritize the wellbeing of residents.

On This Page