By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

La Verkin Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

La Verkin is one of 25 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Project. This 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 process.

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. La Verkin City advertised the survey via social media. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 10, 2020 to March 13, 2020.

A total of 95 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on La Verkin resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Contact Information: Courtney Flint, courtney.flint@usu.edu, 435-797-8635
Acknowledgements: Utah League of Cities and Towns, Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, and Caitlyn Rogers

Respondent Characteristics

Nearly all of the La Verkin survey respondents (94.7%) were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 1 to 50 years with an average of 12.2 years. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (64.3%) of the respondents lived in La Verkin for more than 5 years.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. As the table shows, females, those age 40-59, those with middle incomes ($75,000-$99,999) and those with college degrees are overrepresented in the resulting survey sample. The survey under-represents those age 18-39 and 60+, those with lower incomes, and those who are nonwhite or Latino. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents may not be fully representative of La Verkin residents.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for La Verkin

Demographic Characteristics La Verkin
iPad Survey 2020
(27 Respondents)		 La Verkin
Online Survey 2020
(95 Respondents)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39  40.7% 26.2% 42.6%
Age 40-59  25.9% 52.4% 25.9%
Age 60 or Over 34.3% 21.4% 31.5%
Female  66.7% 68.7% 51.4%
Male  33.3% 31.3% 48.6%
No college degree 76.0% 67.9% 78.0%
College degree (4-year)  24.0% 32.1% 22.0%
Median household income  NA NA $49,954
Income Under $50,000  32.0% 29.8% 50.0%
Income $50,000 to $74,999  36.0% 29.8% 33.6%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 12.0% 29.8% 7.6%
Income $100,000 to $149,999  8.0% 8.3% 6.6%
Income $150,000 or over  12.0% 2.4% 2.2%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		  44.4% 51.8% NA
Other religion  22.2% 28.9% NA
No religious preference 14.8%  19.3% NA
White (non-Latino) 88.0%  92.8% 82.8%
Nonwhite or Latino 12.0%  7.2% 17.2%
Children under 18 in household  NA 41.7% 44.1%
Employed (combined)  NA 61.4% 58.9% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work  NA 1.2% 3.5% (unemployed)
Other  NA 38.4% 37.7% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in La Verkin

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in La Verkin. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score among La Verkin respondents was 4.18, with 79% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in La Verkin was 3.69.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in La Verkin. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 38% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 41% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in La Verkin. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in La Verkin? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 21% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in La Verkin falls above average as compared to the wellbeing scores for all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies La Verkin in the “Rapid Growth Cities” group, along with eight other cities in this study as indicated in the graph below. La Verkin is above average on personal wellbeing scores in this group, but there is no statistically significant difference in the average wellbeing score among these cities.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.

Wellbeing Domains in La Verkin

According to national and international entities tracking wellbeing, a number of common domains make up wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, and indicated their importance to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. Based on percentage with a good or excellent rating, the top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents were Connection with Nature, Mental Health, and Safety and Security. The three most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Mental Health.  

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in La Verkin Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Connection with Nature - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 66% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 34% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in La Verkin. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 21% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 79% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 37% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 63% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 58% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 42% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables for age, gender, religion and income were significantly related to various wellbeing perspectives among La Verkin respondents. These relationships are shown in Table 2 and are based on a multivariate generalized linear model using the categories from Table 1, excluding children in household and employment.

Table 2
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing            
Wellbeing in La Verkin            
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education            
Leisure Time       –
vs no religious preference		    
Living Standards         +   
Local Environmental Quality         –   
Mental Health            
Physical Health            
Safety & Security            
Social Connections       +
vs no religious preference		  + $150,000+ > $100,000-$149,999  – 
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature          + $150,000+ > $100,000-$149,999  
Cultural Opportunities      +      
Education –
vs 18-39 		   +        
Leisure Time            
Living Standards –
vs 18-39 		        –  – 
Local Environmental Quality    +      +  
Mental Health    +        
Physical Health            
Safety and Security –   +     –   
Social Connections             

Wellbeing Matrix for La Verkin

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from La Verkin. There is a clear positive relationship between wellbeing domain importance and wellbeing domain ratings: domains that are rated as more important also tend to be rated higher. None of the domains fall into the red quadrant, which identifies domains where the average importance rating is above the overall average importance across all domains and the average rating is below the overall average rating across all domains. However, safety and security approaches this quadrant, as its average rating is only slightly higher than the overall average rating but its average importance is well above the overall average importance. It is important to note that all domains except for cultural opportunities have an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: La Verkin Wellbeing Matrix. 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 of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, Leisure Time, Local Environmental Quality, Mental Health, and Physical Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education and Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: None.

Community Action & Connections in La Verkin

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in La Verkin. Both questions were scored on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5). When asked about the degree to which people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities in La Verkin, the average score was 3.24. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.08. Responses to these questions did not differ statistically across age, gender, education, religion, income, or race/ethnicity.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in La Verkin. Subtitle: In La Verkin, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 5% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 29% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 11% of respondents.

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in La Verkin. Subtitle: In La Verkin, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 40% of respondents; 4: 24% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Rivers and streams, mountains, red rock, and trails were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on respondents’ wellbeing. Farmland, city parks, and lakes also had a positive influence for over three-fourths of survey respondents.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, over half of respondents noted commercial development as having a positive influence on their wellbeing. Additionally, more respondents noted that residential development and manufacturing industry have a positive influence on their wellbeing than those that noted that they have a negative influence. However, more respondents viewed extractive industry as negative than those that viewed it as positive, though almost half of respondents (49%) noted that it is neither positive nor negative.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in La Verkin Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 0% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Mountains - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 0% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 8% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 24% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 18% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 31% indicated neither, 51% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 22% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 41% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 24% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 30% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in La Verkin

Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they felt population growth was just right (49%) and 35% indicated they thought it was too fast. Comparatively, over one-half of respondents felt that economic development was too slow (56%), while almost one-third of respondents felt that it was just right (31%). Compared to the other cities in the winter 2020 survey, La Verkin residents were more satisfied in terms of population growth but had a relatively high proportion of respondents that noted that economic development is too slow.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in La Verkin. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in La Verkin? Data - Too Slow: 12% of respondents; Just Right: 49% of respondents; Too Fast: 35% of respondents; No Opinion: 4% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in La Verkin. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in La Verkin? Data - Too Slow: 56% of respondents; Just Right - 31% of respondents; Too Fast - 11% of respondents; No Opinion - 2% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth in Sampled Utah Cities. Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 91% indicated too fast; Lehi - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 83% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 80% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Draper - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Tooele - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 70% indicated too fast. North Logan - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 66% indicated too fast. Moab - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 64% indicated too fast; Nibley - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 60% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nephi - 6% of respondents indicated too slow, 53% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 12% of respondents indicated too slow, 35% indicated too fast; Richfield - 14% of respondents indicated too slow, 18% indicated too fast; Delta - 31% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Helper - 22% of respondents indicated too slow, 8% indicated too fast.

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development in Sampled Utah Cities. Draper - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 44% indicated too fast; Lehi - 9% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nibley - 19% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Moab - 24% of respondents indicated too slow, 62% indicated too fast; North Logan - 29% of respondents indicated too slow, 19% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 35% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 44% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 45% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 47% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Herriman - 48% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated too slow, 15% indicated too fast; Helper - 52% of respondents indicated too slow, 2% indicated too fast; Nephi - 54% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 56% of respondents indicated too slow, 11% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 58% of respondents indicated too slow, 12% indicated too fast; Richfield - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 5% indicated too fast; Tooele - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 10% indicated too fast; Delta - 80% of respondents indicated too slow, 0% indicated too fast.

Risks and Assets for Wellbeing in La Verkin

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a major or minor risk or asset to wellbeing in La Verkin (see Table 3).

Table 3
Top Rated Risks and Assets by La Verkin Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 80% of respondents)		 Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 20% of respondents)
Air Quality Substance Abuse
Public Safety Affordable Housing
Recreation Opportunities Access to Healthcare
Access to Public Land Shopping Opportunities
Water Supply  

Respondents also wrote in other assets and risks as shown in Table 4. It is clear that some people not only listed current assets, but also those they wish La Verkin had.

Table 4
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by La Verkin Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Affordable housing/rental City rec center Care of personal property Code enforcement
Commercial growth Good neighborhood Lack of local restaurants Lack of odor control
Gun range Neighborhood watch Police presence Taxes too high (and other tax concerns)
Parks, walkways, splashpad for kids, shade above public play areas Police Protection Too many rental homes in area  
Wildlife      

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 30 respondents (32%) of the 95 completing the survey).

Dominant themes in comments:

  • Improve city image and code enforcement
  • Would like safer walking trails and sidewalks
  • Too many vacation rentals in neighborhoods
  • More shopping and dining options

A Few Quotes

  • “We need new blood in the community. We need jobs. We need some roads fixed. We need something to keep our young people here. We need options for shopping.”
  • “I would like to see our city bring in more base level jobs. There is real risk of a major economic driver closing down with nothing to replace it.”
  • “We need more public facilities such a recreation center or multipurpose center that can be used for medium to large sized group gatherings. Also would like to see more economic development and an increase in businesses that can support our city.”
  • “I love the small town feeling and the rural atmosphere. I love the clean air and the mountains. I love how friendly people are and think we have a friendly community.”
  

On This Page