By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Spanish Fork Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Spanish Fork City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2021. 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. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 Spanish Fork survey as well as some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, Spanish Fork City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter to all households, social media, survey panel, and city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 770 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 effort with 83% complete responses.  
  • The adult population of Spanish Fork was estimated at 24,234 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The survey responses represent 3.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 3.48%. 

Key Findings in Spanish Fork

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Spanish Fork were above average among 29 study cities. Age, gender, and religion were influential factors related to wellbeing. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Safety and Security

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Mental Health
  • Physical Health
  • Living Standards

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Physical Health
  • (Mental Health approaches this zone)

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 41% of respondents. Community wellbeing was more likely to decline for those living in Spanish Fork longer than 5 years. Living standards and mental health were more likely to decline for those without a college degree. 

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast, but attitudes were more divided about the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Spanish Fork were:

  • Roads and Transportation (69% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (69% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (69% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Spanish Fork? 
Small town feel, good amenities, abundant recreation, well-run government, and access to nature.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Spanish Fork 98.3% Map Area 1 1.5%
Part Time Residents of Spanish Fork 1.7% Map Area 2 4.5%
Length of Residency - Range 0-78 years Map Area 3 18.2%
Length of Residency - Average 18 years Map Area 4 18.1%
Length of Residency - Median 12 years Map Area 5 12.5%
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 31.2% Map Area 6 41.2%
Map Area 7 4.1%

Spanish Fork map

 

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of Spanish Fork. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, have children in household, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 are particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics. 

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Spanish Fork

Demographic Characteristics Spanish Fork Online Wellbeing
Survey 2021 (N=770)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-29 6.7% 28.2%
Age 30-39 25.1% 24.1%
Age 40-49 31.3% 17.8%
Age 50-59 17.3% 13.0%
Age 60-69 13.7% 8.3%
Age 70 or over 5.8% 8.6%
Adult female 68.6% 49.7%
Adult male 31.4% 50.3%
No college degree 44.9% 65.2%
College degree (4-year) 55.1% 34.8%
Median household income NA $79,846
Income under $25,000 2.7% 7.5%
Income $25,000-$49,999 11.8% 16.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 18.3% 21.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 20.7% 16.8%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 31.0% 26.6%
Income $150,000 or over 4.3% 10.9%
Latter-day Saint 61.6% NA
Other religion 19.8% NA
No religious preference 18.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino 4.8% 11.5%
White 94.6% 84.0%
Nonwhite 5.4% 16.0%
Married 84.8% 63.5%
Children under 18 in household 59.5% 55.3%
Employed (combined) 63.7% 67.7%
Out of work and looking for work 1.5% 1.3%
Other 34.8% 30.6%
Own home/owner occupied 90.0% 75.3%
Rent home/renter occupied/other 10.0% 24.7%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Spanish Fork

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Spanish Fork. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Spanish Fork was 4.06, with 81% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Spanish Fork was 3.87 with 70% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Spanish Fork Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 52% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Spanish Fork Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Spanish Fork? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 21% of respondents

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 41% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 36% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Spanish Fork declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 5%; Declined slightly: 36%; No change: 36%; Improved slightly: 18%; Improved Substantially: 5%.
Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Spanish Fork changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 4%; Declined slightly: 32%; No change: 41%; Improved slightly: 18%; Improved Substantially: 5%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Spanish Fork as a Rapid Growth City. Within this cluster of cities, Spanish Fork falls above average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Spanish Fork is not statistically significantly different from the other cities in this cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it is significantly higher than Lehi, Santaquin, Nephi, Ephraim, and Herriman on overall community wellbeing.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.22; Sandy: Average Score 4.13; Bountiful: Average Score 4.06; South Ogden: Average Score 4.05; Layton: Average Score 3.98; Logan: Average Score 3.81; Tooele: Average Score 3.79. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.18; Vineyard: Average Score 4.17; Nibley: Average Score 4.16; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Hurricane: Average Score 4.08; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.06; Nephi: Average Score 4.05; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.03; Santaquin: Average Score 4.00; Lehi: Average Score 3.98; Ephraim: Average Score 3.86; Herriman: Average Score 3.86. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.07; Wellington: Average Score 4.02; La Verkin: Average Score 3.98; Blanding: Average Score 3.88; Moab: Average Score 3.82; East Carbon: Average Score 3.82; Price: Average Score 3.79, Delta: Average Score: 3.78; Vernal: Average Score 3.66.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Bountiful: Average Score 3.96; Draper: Average Score 3.89; Sandy: Average Score 3.80; Layton: Average Score 3.72; South Ogden: Average Score 3.68; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Tooele: Average Score 3.28. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.06; Vineyard: Average Score 3.95; North Logan: Average Score 3.91; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.87; Nibley: Average Score 3.80; Hurricane: Average Score 3.75; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.66; Lehi: Average Score 3.60; Santaquin: Average Score 3.59; Nephi: Average Score 3.58; Ephraim: Average Score 3.57; Herriman: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 3.88; Helper: Average Score 3.73; La Verkin: Average Score 3.62; Wellington: Average Score 3.61; Delta: Average Score 3.51; Blanding: Average Score 3.48; Vernal: Average Score 3.27; Price: Average Score 3.17, Moab: Average Score: 3.13; East Carbon: Average Score 2.98.

Wellbeing Domains in Spanish Fork

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing well in each area. 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 top two highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Spanish Fork were Living Standards and Safety and Security. The two most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security and Mental Health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Spanish Fork Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% 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 - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 70% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 30% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? 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: Safety and Security 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 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 - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 21% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 79% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 33% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 29% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 59% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 41% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Spanish Fork

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Spanish Fork. Living Standards and Safety and Security were highly important and highly rated. Physical Health falls into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that it was of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Mental Health approaches this quadrant as its importance was close to the overall average domain importance, but rating fell below the overall average rating. Please note that all domains except for cultural opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Spanish ForkWellbeing 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: Living Standards, Safety and Security, Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality, Education, Leisure Time. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health.

Does wellbeing vary across neighborhood areas in Spanish Fork?

Overall personal wellbeing and city wellbeing varied by respondent’s self-identified area of residence, but these differences were not statistically significant.

  • Map Area 1 (n=11)     Overall Wellbeing Average 4.45         City Wellbeing Average 3.91
  • Map Area 2 (n=34)     Overall Wellbeing Average 4.24       City Wellbeing Average 3.94
  • Map Area 3 (n=138)   Overall Wellbeing Average 3.98       City Wellbeing Average 3.78
  • Map Area 4 (n=137)   Overall Wellbeing Average 4.00       City Wellbeing Average 3.90
  • Map Area 5 (n=95)     Overall Wellbeing Average 4.06       City Wellbeing Average 3.87
  • Map Area 6 (n=312)   Overall Wellbeing Average 4.10        City Wellbeing Average 3.88
  • Map Area 7 (n=31)     Overall Wellbeing Average 4.13        City Wellbeing Average 3.97

Spanish Fork map
How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health as shown in the graph below. No change was reported by most Spanish Fork respondents for the areas of Safety and Security, Local Environmental Quality, and Living Standards. Improvements were reported by 18% of respondents for Leisure Time and Connection to Nature.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 77% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 21% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVI-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 70% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 29% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 57% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 40% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 43% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 39% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 41% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 50% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 18% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 70% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 72% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 17% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 79% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

The following relationships were found in Spanish Fork between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

Community wellbeing was more likely to decline for those living in Spanish Fork longer than 5 years.

  • Living standards were more likely to decline for those without a college degree

  • Local environmental quality was more likely to decline for those without a college degree.

  • Mental health was more likely to decline for those without a college degree.

  • Physical health was less likely to decline for those age 60+ than those age 40-59.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among Spanish Fork respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model based on unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Colors indicate strongest relationships (p < .05).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Spanish Fork

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing         +  
Wellbeing in Spanish Fork

–
vs Age 18-39

       +
Over $150,000 >
Under $50,000 		  
Connection to Nature +
vs Age 40-59		     – vs Other +
Over $150,000>
Under $50,000 		 – 
Cultural Opportunities +
vs Age 18-39		 –    + vs A/A/NRP     
Education   – + + vs A/A/NRP     
Leisure Time +
 –   – vs Other    
Living Standards   – + + vs A/A/NRP  +  
Local Environmental Quality       + vs A/A/NRP  +  
Mental Health + –     +
Over $150,000 >
Under $50,000 		  
Physical Health         + vs A/A/NRP  +
Over $150,000 >
Under $50,000 		  
Safety & Security – –  +    +
  
Social Connections       +
   –
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature + 
vs Age 40-59		     – vs Other +   
Cultural Opportunities + +   – vs Other    
Education –
   +      
Leisure Time   –   – vs Other +
 
Living Standards       – vs Other +  –
Local Environmental Quality +

   – – vs A/A/NP    
Mental Health –
vs Age 18-39		  +        
Physical Health +
vs Age 40-59		  +   – vs Other    
Safety and Security +
vs Age 40-59		  +
 
   – vs Other    
Social Connections +
  + + + vs A/A/NRP      
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Spanish Fork

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Spanish Fork. 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 Spanish Fork, the average score was 3.36. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.26.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: In Spanish Fork, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 3% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Spanish Fork as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 6% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 32% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 11% of respondents

Demographic characteristics were influential regarding community connection and perceptions of local action as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Those age 60+, residents living in Spanish Fork more than 5 years, and Latter-day Saints indicated higher perceptions of local action. Latter-day Saints also indicated greater community connection. Other variables had weaker relationships with community connection. Colors indicate strongest relationships (p < .05).

Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Spanish Fork take action? +     + vs A/A/NRP   –
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs Age 18-39		 –   +   –

A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

A significant, positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connectedness and overall personal wellbeing.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Spanish Fork. Of the 18 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 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 114 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 76% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 340 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 57% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 193 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 41% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 59% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. Spanish Fork is in the bottom 5 on both perceived community action and in the lower half on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.
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. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Spanish Fork was 2.27. Church group activities were the most common activity for respondents (70%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 70% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 31% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 30% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 37% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 32% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 24% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 4% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Spanish Fork Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 27% indicated neither, 71% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 30% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 32% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 22% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 30% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 56% indicated neither, 14% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 45% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 6% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Spanish Fork survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (70%), but they were more evenly distributed on the pace of economic development, with 45% indicating just right, and 47% indicating too fast.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Spanish Fork? Data – 0% of respondents rated too slow; 24% of respondents rated just right; 70% of respondents rated too fast, 5% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Spanish Fork? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 45% of respondents rated just right; 47% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Spanish Fork compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Respondent’s Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: Population Growth, How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 72% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 52% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 48% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 90% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 84% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 80% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 79% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 70% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 68% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 57% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 55% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 35% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast;City: La Verkin – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 46% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 14% of respondents rated too slow, 29% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 18% of respondents rated too slow, 17% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 15% of respondents rated too slow, 11% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 32% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 35% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Economic Growth, How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 19% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 28% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 22% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 41% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 39% of respondents rated too slow, 13% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 73% of respondents rated too fast; City: La Verkin – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 64% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 57% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 51% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 75% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 79% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 66% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in Spanish Fork

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Spanish Fork. Roads and Transportation, Affordable Housing, and Air Quality were the top three concerns with over two-thirds of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Spanish Fork, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% 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: Water Supply- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 42% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 58% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 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 Mental Health Care- 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 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 Healthcare- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 104 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Traffic and Too much growth were the most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned
Number of Mentions
Other Concerns Mentioned
Number of Mentions

Traffic

 12 Too much growth  12

City government decisions/communication

 7

Need for more social and recreation outlets (sports, art, disc golf)

 7

Better design of roads and infrastructure

6 High density housing  6

Public transportation services

 6

Education quality

 4

Civil unrest/sense of community

4 Increased taxes 4

COVID-19 help and safety

 3

Overdevelopment of farmland

 3

Lack of sidewalks/lighting

 3

Lack of full-time fire department/EMT

3

Maintenance of river bottoms as green space

 2

Options for grocery stores and restaurants

 2

Expand on trails/parks

 2 Fireflies 2

Animal control

 1

Cost of living

 1

Diversity

 1

Golf course sprinklers

 1

High speed internet

 1

Improving public library

 1

Quality of neighborhoods

 1

Preserving heritage

 1

Recreation center

 1

Religion prejudices

 1

Replace sewer lines

 1 Street parking 1

Theft in neighborhoods

 1 Town loss 1

Waste treatment facility

1

Whataburger franchise

1

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Spanish Fork with one question on what they value most about their city and another for any additional comments on wellbeing. A summary of values is below. Analysis is ongoing regarding all additional comments and a summary will be added to the report later in 2021.

Key Themes for “Please tell us what you value most about living in Spanish Fork”

  • Best of both worlds between small town and big city
  • Plenty of trails, parks, nature, and recreation
  • Abundant shopping, dining, and entertainment options
  • Great city leadership and services
  • Beautiful nature views and open farmland

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –Category: Social Climate- 359 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small-Town feel, Connected, Friendly, Family-Friendly, Other. Category: Natural Resources- 123 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Farmland/ Open Space, Good air Quality, Other. Category: Economy- 160 mentions- Good Amenities, Low Cost of Living, Local Businesses. Category: Entertainment- 138 Mentions- Abundant Recreation, Abundant Cultural Opportunities, Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 219 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Well-Run Government, Feels Safe, Good Location, Good Pace of Growth and Development, Other.

Contact Information
Dr. Courtney Flint
courtney.flint@usu.edu
435-797-8635

On This Page

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Madison Fjeldsted, Jordan Hammon, and Sarah Wilson.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.