By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

Tooele Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Tooele 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. Tooele City advertised the survey via social media and locally distributed flyers. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from January 28, 2020 to February 23, 2020.

A total of 252 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Tooele resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Tooele residents (173) were also surveyed in Summer 2019 in a preliminary effort using iPads at public places such as parks, city offices, grocery stores, etc. A report from that effort can be found at https://usu.edu/utah-wellbeing-project/.

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 Tooele survey respondents (97.6%) were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 0 to 70 years with an average of 14.7 years. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63.6%) had lived in Tooele 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 are overrepresented in the resulting survey sample as well as households with children and those with a college degree. The survey results also under-represent nonwhites or Latinos. 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 Tooele residents.

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

Demographic Characteristics Tooele
iPad Survey 2020
(173 Respondents)		 Tooele
Online Survey 2020
(252 Respondents)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39  60.0% 44.6% 46.2%
Age 40-59  23.7% 40.6% 32.7%
Age 60 or Over  15.9% 14.7% 21.1%
Female  67.4% 76.2% 50.8%
Male  32.6% 23.8% 49.2%
No college degree  63.7% 64.7% 84.2%
College degree (4-year)  36.3% 35.3% 15.8%
Median household income  NA NA $65,740
Income Under $50,000  33.3% 27.5% 34.1%
Income $50,000 to $74,999  26.2% 26.6% 23.4%
Income $75,000 to $99,999  21.4% 22.5% 16.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999  14.9% 18.8% 20.4%
Income $150,000 or over  4.2% 4.6% 5.6%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		  51.4% 55.0% NA
Other religion  20.2% 18.0% NA
No religious preference 20.8%  27.0% NA
White (non-Latino) 78.2%  93.6% 80.3%
Nonwhite or Latino 21.8%  6.4% 19.7%
Children under 18 in household  NA 60.5% 45.4%
Employed (combined)  NA 63.9% 65.1% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work  NA 2.7% 3.8% (unemployed)
Other  NA 33.6% 31.1% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Tooele

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Tooele. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score among Tooele respondents was 3.77, with 67% indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Tooele was 3.14.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 45% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 22% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Tooele? Data - 1 Very Poor: 8% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 33% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 6% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Tooele was the lowest average of the wellbeing scores for all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Tooele in the “Established/Mid-Sized Cities” group, along with three other cities in this study (Draper, Bountiful, and Cedar City). Of these cities, the score in Tooele is statistically lower than the other three.

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 Tooele

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 living standards, safety and security, education, and connection with nature. The most important wellbeing domains were safety and security, mental health, living standards, and physical health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Living Standards - 41% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 59% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 60% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 40% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 60% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 40% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 64% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 36% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 77% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 23% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Tooele. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% 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: Living Standards - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% of respondents 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 - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 30% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% 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 - 49% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 51% rated as important or very important.


The demographic variables for age, gender, college education, religion and race/ethnicity were significantly related to various respondent wellbeing perspectives among Tooele respondents. These relationships are shown in Table 2 below 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 +
vs 40-59 		    +      
Wellbeing in Tooele       +
vs no religious preference		    
Connection to Nature           +  
Cultural Opportunities            
Education     +  +
vs no religious preference		    
Leisure Time        +
vs no religious preference		    
Living Standards     + +
vs no religious preference		    
Local Environmental Quality       +
vs other religion &
no religious preference		    
Mental Health            
Physical Health +
vs 40-59		            
Safety & Security      +  +
vs other religion &
no religious preference		    
Social Connections      + +
vs no religious preference		   +  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature           +
Cultural Opportunities      +      
Education –
vs 18-39 		          
Leisure Time            
Living Standards    +    
+
$150,000+ > $75,000-$99,999
 
  
Local Environmental Quality    +    –
vs no religious preference
    
Mental Health    +    +
vs other religion		    
Physical Health    +        
Safety and Security    +       +  
Social Connections     +        

Wellbeing Matrix for Tooele

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Tooele. Local Environmental Quality and Physical Health fall into the red quadrant, indicating that they were found to be of higher than average importance, but rated lower than average. Mental Health approaches this quadrant, as it was found to be relatively very important, but its average rating is only slightly higher than the overall average rating of the wellbeing domains. Leisure Time also approaches this quadrant, as its overall rating is lower than the average rating of the domains and its overall importance is only slightly lower than the average importance of all of the domains. 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: Tooele 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, Mental Health, and Education. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections, Leisure Time, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality and Physical Health.

Community Action & Connections in Tooele

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Tooele. 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 Tooele, the average score was 3.29. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.82.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Tooele. Subtitle: In Tooele, 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: 32% of respondents; 4: 32% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents.

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Tooele. Subtitle: In Tooele, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 12% of respondents; 2: 28% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 20% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% of respondents.

In terms of demographic characteristics and community-related questions, female respondents were more likely to indicate that higher levels of action occur and Latter-day Saint respondents indicated higher levels of community connectedness than those with no religious preference (but not those that identify with a different religion) (See Table 3). Additionally, a significant, positive relationship exists between individuals’ community connectedness and their overall personal wellbeing.

Table 3
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Do people in Tooele take action?   +         
Do you feel connected to your community?       +
vs no religious preference		    

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Tooele. Of the 22 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 57 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 106 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 70% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 48 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 56% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Mountains, rivers and streams, trails, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on respondents’ wellbeing. Over two-thirds of respondents also noted city parks and farmland as having a positive influence. Just under half of respondents noted red rock as having a positive influence.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, over half of respondents noted extractive industry as having a negative influence on their wellbeing. More respondents noted manufacturing industry and residential development as having a negative influence on their wellbeing than those that noted them as having a positive influence. Comparatively, nearly twice as many respondents noted commercial development as having a positive influence than those that noted it as having a negative influence.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Tooele 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, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 7% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 71% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 68% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 50% indicated neither, 48% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 22% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 43% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 31% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 28% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 55% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 51% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 5% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Tooele

The majority of survey respondents indicated that they felt population growth was too fast (70%). In contrast, nearly two-thirds of respondents felt that economic development was too slow (63%). Compared to the other cities in the winter 2020 survey, Tooele was in the upper half in terms of respondents indicating that they felt population growth was too fast and had the second largest percent of respondents that indicated that they thought economic development was too slow.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Tooele? Data - Too Slow: 3% of respondents; Just Right: 20% of respondents; Too Fast: 70% of respondents; No Opinion: 7% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Tooele? Data - Too Slow: 63% of respondents; Just Right - 17% of respondents; Too Fast - 10% of respondents; No Opinion - 9% 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 Tooele

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a major or minor risk or asset to wellbeing in Tooele (see Table 4).

Table 4
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Tooele Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 65% of respondents)		 Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 31% of respondents)
Public Safety Substance Abuse
Recreation Opportunities Water Supply
Access to Public Land Shopping Opportunities
Access to Quality Food Roads and Transportation
Access to Healthcare  

Respondents also wrote in other assets and risks as shown in Table 5. It is clear that some people not only listed current assets, but also those they wish Tooele had.

Table 5
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Tooele Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Trails, dog parks, water for recreation, Kid friendly fun/splash pads, ponds with ducks (3) Library and rec center access, rec center for families (2) Blight, empty buildings, unclean spaces, litter (4) Poor public transportation (3)
Transit system into SLC (2) Access to quality dining experience Drugs, park safety & drugs (2) Mental health resources (2)
Agricultural endeavors Clean yards Traffic (2) Access to public services such as a recreation center
Community events Handicap accessibility Cultural opportunities Growth outweighs city employees to do their job
Honorable local government I-80 east bound Homeless population influx Jobs
Leave Tooele rural Managed growth and infrastructure More shopping areas Noise pollution
Need more water People involved in the community Not enough safe cycling lanes and trails Non-ethical government currently running Tooele
Religion, Strong faith relationships Road maintenance Religious favoritism School climate
Seniors   Taxes Too many residents-not enough water
    Too many rock trucks. Pave road to South Willow trails  

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 100 respondents (40% of those that completed the survey). Tooele residents had a variety of concerns about their city. Many people mentioned wanting to see more recreation activities available, especially for youth. Another common request was bringing in more variety of retail stores, restaurants, and grocery stores. However, people were also concerned about controlling the growth of Tooele and not allowing it to outgrow the resources and space available. There were several comments about improving the city image of Tooele, especially in the downtown area. Other concerns mentioned include traffic, drug use, and property taxes.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Wanting more recreation and activities
  • Wanting more restaurant and shopping
  • Calls for improvement of Tooele’s image, especially downtown area
  • Desire for controlled and sustainable growth
  • Concern about drug use and safety

A Few Quotes

  • “Needs more activities for kids and families.”
  • “We need more retail. For my shopping needs, I’m tired of just Walmart. I think our population can support more stores, like Target or similar. Also we need more restaurant options, or perhaps different choices of cuisines.”
  • “Please please please get commercial development going and access to the freeway bigger! We need to keep up with the growth of the county!”
  • “Our city needs more parks, less new houses. There's nothing wrong with seeing open land. Don't turn it into a big suburban area. Keep it rural.”
  • “I think Tooele City's downtown is a blight. The buildings are in disrepair; there is little convenient parking; and many of the shops are of no particular benefit to my well-being. Revitalization of the downtown should be a top priority for Tooele officials.”
  • “I love being away from the city but close enough to go whenever I want.. concerned about the roads and transportation as tooele continues to grow.”

Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 6 positive comments, 81 negative comments, 13 mixed comments.     Bar chart. Title: Major Themes. Theme: Growth and Development – mentioned 18 times; Lacking Economic Amenities – mentioned 15 times; Poor City Image – mentioned 12 times; Traffic – mentioned 11 times; Lacking Recreation – mentioned 11 times; Drugs/Crime – mentioned 10 times.

On This Page