Utah Statewide Wellbeing Survey Report

By Dr. Courtney Flint, Nicolas Holden, and Team

---

Summary

The Utah Wellbeing Survey project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning processes. Questions include rating and importance of twelve different domains or categories of wellbeing, participation in recreation and nature-related activities, cost of living challenges, perspectives on local population growth and economic development, transportation related questions, concerns for the future, and an array of demographic characteristic questions.

How was the survey conducted?

In early 2026, 57 cities and towns participated in the Utah Wellbeing Survey. An additional six communities also participated but did not receive enough responses for their results to be included in these reports. The survey for each city and town was available online through Qualtrics for at least three weeks. Participating cities advertised the surveys in a variety of ways, including social media, newsletters, utility bills, websites, flyers, local news media, emails, apps, and other local mechanisms. All residents in the participating cities and towns age 18+ were encouraged to take the survey.

How many people responded?

A total of 11,559 completed surveys were recorded during this 2026 effort, bringing the total number of surveys completed for the Utah Wellbeing Project since 2019 up to 53,530. Response numbers for each city are listed further in the report.

Additional Information

Reports summarizing city-specific results from the survey can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website. This information may help city and town leaders refine their messaging with residents on key issues, affirm existing plans, and support future planning. Findings may have practical implications for spending and providing services.

A special thank you goes to the Utah League of Cities and Towns, The Quinney College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at USU, 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).

Survey Cities and Towns Responses

This effort builds upon previous survey efforts in 2019-2024. The map below highlights the cities participating in the survey project in 2026.

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. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. Below is each participating city or town with their number of survey responses for 2026 organized by the cluster used in analysis.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

For each survey city, demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared with U.S. Census information from the 2020-2024 American Community Survey. In the graph below, commonly misrepresented demographics across survey cities are shown. As the graph shows, 2026 survey respondents were not fully representative of their city. Those who are ages 18-29, adult males, without a college degree, and are renters were consistently underrepresented, while those who are adult females, with a college degree, are married, and are home owners were consistently overrepresented.

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Cities

The average of the participating cities’ average overall personal wellbeing scores for all surveyed cities was 4.07 on a scale from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent). The average of the participating cities’ average overall community wellbeing scores for all surveyed cities was 3.67. The figure below shows the average overall personal and community wellbeing scores for each city within their cluster type.

The graph below shows the average of the average overall personal and community wellbeing scores for each cluster. While the cluster average of the average overall personal and community wellbeing scores was lower for the Rural cluster, this cluster also exhibits the greatest heterogeneity of scores.

Overall Personal Wellbeing By Demographics

Wellbeing Domains

The survey asked respondents to both rate their wellbeing for twelve domains and indicate the importance of these domains to their overall wellbeing. The matrix graph below shows the relationship between the ratings and the importance of the twelve wellbeing domains for the combined and unweighted statewide data. These variables were measured on 5-point scales. For all respondents in 2026, the highest rated domains were Family Life, Safety and Security, and Living Standards. The most important domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, and Physical Health. Local Environmental Quality and Connection with Nature fell in the “red zone” quadrant for higher importance and lower than average ratings, while Leisure Time and Physical Health approached this zone. The individual city matrix graphs varied considerably, and the domain scores also varied across demographic groups. This graph has not been weighted by population, sample size, or demographics.

Some cities and towns had wellbeing domains or categories that fell in the “red zone” showing that the domains were of high importance, but rated lower than average for that city. Local Environmental Quality was the most common “red zone” category, followed by Physical Health, Leisure Time. Connection with Nature and Education were “red zone” categories for a few locations.

Red Zone Domains for Study Cities (Domains with High Importance Scores and Lower Ratings)

Local Environmental Quality	Physical Health	Leisure Time	Connection with Nature
Alpine Alta Bluffdale Bountiful Cedar City Cottonwood Heights Eagle Mountain Enoch Grantsville Heber Herriman Ivins Kamas Kaysville La Verkin Lake Point Lehi Lewiston Lindon Logan Mapleton Mayfield Midway Millcreek Moab Morgan Murray Nephi North Salt Lake Ogden Providence Richfield Sandy Saratoga Springs South Jordan South Ogden South Weber Springdale Stockton Tooele Toquerville Tremonton Uintah City Wellsville Wendover West Bountiful West Jordan West Valley City Woods Cross	Blanding Enoch Ferron Kaysville La Verkin Lewiston Lindon Logan Manila Mapleton Mayfield Orangeville Providence Richfield South Ogden Uintah City Wellsville Wendover Woods Cross	Bluffdale Cedar City Eagle Mountain Lehi Lewiston Logan Nephi Providence Richfield Saratoga Springs Tremonton Vernal Wellsville	Alpine Logan Mapleton Sandy South Ogden South Weber
Education	None
Wendover	Bluff Cedar Hills Delta

Community Connection

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to their city on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all the participating cities was 3.23. The graph below shows how Wellbeing Project cities and towns compare on feelings of community connection based on the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or a 5 on a 5-point scale from “not at all” to “a great deal” connected to their city or town. Grouping cities into their clusters, we see that variability of community connections scores is consistent within each cluster and each cluster exhibits a similar range of scores.

Across the state, those with higher levels of community connectedness reported higher levels of personal wellbeing and mental health. This relationship has not been weighted by city population, city sample proportion, or demographic variables.

Disability

Survey participants were asked how well their city included individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities. The largest proportion of respondents indicated they had no opinion or that the question was not relevant (43%). For those that expressed an opinion, respondents were split between opinions that they were 3 quite well and 2 somewhat included.

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 (85%) and Gardening at home (76%).

The following graph shows the relationship between participation in different recreational activities and personal wellbeing, community wellbeing, and community connection. Dots farther to the right indicate that people who participated more frequently in that recreational activity also tended to report higher outcomes of wellbeing. Dots closer to zero indicate little or no relationship. These results identify relationships in the data and do not mean that participating in an activity causes higher wellbeing. All relationships shown were statistically significant.

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 respondents was natural landscapes.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

There were considerable differences in perspectives over population growth versus economic growth across the study cities. Respondents from all but the most rural cities felt population growth was too fast. There was more variation in perspectives on the pace of economic development.

Comparison between the the census data and the perceived growth rates

Cost of Living

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in their city. Across Utah, the most difficult expenses were Childcare (65%), Housing (39%), and Healthcare (39%). Note that a high percentage (71%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Transportation in Utah

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in their city. Statewide, the most problematic barriers were Cost (53%) and Travel time (49%).

Concerns for the Future of Utah Cities

The graph below shows the aggregate concerns for all 2026 respondents across Utah. Statewide, the top concerns were Water Supply (84%), Traffic (71%), and Open Space/Green Space (70%).

Top concerns also varied across cities and clusters. Concerns for each city are found in their city report. Water Supply, and Open Space/Green Space, were in the top 6 concerns across all five city clusters. Affordable Housing appeared in the top 6 in all but the Cities of the 1st and 2nd class cluster, while Water Quality appeared in the Cities of the 1st and 2nd class, Rapid Growth, and Traditional Rural Communities clusters. The more urban clusters contained Air Quality, Traffic, and the Great Salt Lake in their top 6, while the more rural clusters contained Opportunities for Youth, Wildfire, and Employment Opportunities.