By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Tooele Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Tooele City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project and has been involved since 2020. 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 Tooele City survey with information on changes since 2020 and 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, Tooele City advertised the survey via newsletters to households, social media, city website and marque, and local newspaper. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 210 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 68% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 252 responses and the 2019 iPad survey had 173 responses. The full Tooele Wellbeing Survey reports from 2020 and 2019 are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Tooele was estimated at 23,834 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 210 survey responses in 2021 represent 0.9% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.73%.

Key Findings in Tooele

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Tooele were below average among 29 study cities. Latter-day Saints consistently indicated higher levels of 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

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 51% of respondents. Community wellbeing was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints and those living in Tooele 5 years or less. 

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

Top concerns for the future of Tooele were:

  • Roads and Transportation (89% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Recreation Opportunities (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (80% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (80% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Tooele?
Small town feel, access to nature, good location, low housing cost and large lot sizes.  

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Tooele 99.0%
Part Time Residents of Tooele 1.0%
Length of Residency - Range 0-73 years
Length of Residency - Average 14 years
Length of Residency - Median 11 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 37.3%

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, 2021 survey respondents were not fully representative of Tooele City. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, and have children in household 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 Tooele

Demographic Characteristics iPad Survey Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2019
(N=173)		 2020
(N=252)		 2021 (N=210)
Age 18-29 24.7% 15.2% 9.1% 25.4%
Age 30-39 24.7% 29.5% 33.5% 20.9%
Age 40-49 25.9% 24.1% 29.0% 20.1%
Age 50-59 8.8% 16.5% 14.2% 12.5%
Age 60-69 10.0% 9.4% 9.1% 10.6%
Age 70 or over 5.9% 5.4% 5.1% 10.5%
Adult female 68.2% 76.2% 68.6% 50.8%
Adult male 31.8% 23.8% 31.4% 49.2% 
No college degree 63.7% 64.7% 58.5% 84.2%
College degree (4-year) 36.3% 35.3% 41.5% 15.8%
Median household income NA NA NA $65,740
Income under $25,000 9.5% 4.1% 4.6% 10.7%
Income $25,000-$49,999 23.8% 23.4% 17.1% 23.4%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 26.2% 26.6% 26.3% 23.4%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 21.4% 22.5% 18.9% 16.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 14.9% 18.8% 26.3% 20.4%
Income $150,000 or over 3.6% 4.6% 6.9% 5.6%
Latter-day Saint 55.6% 55.0% 55.5% NA
Other religion 21.9% 18.0% 22.5% NA
No religious preference 22.5% 27.0% 22.0% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA NA 8.6% 14.1%
White 78.2% 93.6% 92.4% 86.6%
Nonwhite 21.8% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 6.4% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 7.6% 13.4%
Married NA 79.7% 86.3% 53.4%
Children under 18 in household NA 60.5% 64.6% 45.4%
Employed (combined) NA 63.9% 65.9% 65.1%
Out of work and looking for work NA 2.7% 2.8% 3.8% 
Other NA 33.6% 31.3% 31.1%
Own home/owner occupied NA NA 89.2% 79.3%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA NA 11.5% 20.7%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Tooele

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Tooele City. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Tooele City was 3.79 with 69% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Tooele City was 3.28 with 45% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Tooele Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 26% of respondents; 4: 53% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 16% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Tooele Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Layton? Data - 1 Very Poor: 3% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 40% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 5% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from Tooele, the average personal wellbeing score increased slightly from 3.77 to 3.79 and the community wellbeing score increased from 3.14 to 3.28. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing From 2020-2021 in Tooele. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 3.77, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.14, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 3.79, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.28

In 2019, a 1-10 scale was used for personal and community wellbeing.

Tooele’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      7.56

Community Wellbeing in Tooele            6.64

Converted to 1-5 scale, Tooele’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      4.01

Community Wellbeing in Tooele             3.56

We don't include these in the graph because there is uncertainty in the conversion of scales.

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

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 51% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 52% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Tooele declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Tooele. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 9%; Declined slightly: 42%; No change: 29%; Improved slightly: 17%; Improved Substantially: 4%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Tooele. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Tooele changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 12%; Declined slightly: 40%; No change: 33%; Improved slightly: 13%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Tooele City as an Established/Mid-Sized City (and we have combined this with Cities of the 1st and 2nd Class). Within this cluster of cities, Tooele City falls below the average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Tooele is statistically significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster except for Logan in terms of overall personal wellbeing, and all other cities in the cluster 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 Tooele

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 three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Tooele City were Living Standards, Safety and Security and Mental Health. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Living Standards.

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: Safety and Security - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 55% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 45% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 52% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 48% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 55% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 45% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 54% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 46% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 68% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 32% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 81% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 19% 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? 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 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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 - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 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 - 32% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 68% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% 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 - 54% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 46% rated as important or very important.

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 City. Living Standards, Safety and Security and Mental Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Physical Health falls in the “red zone” of high importance, but lower ratings. Local Environmental Quality approaches this red quadrant, indicating higher-than-average importance, but rated close to the average of domains.

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

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. Improvements were reported in Connection to Nature for 15% of respondents and Leisure Time for 14% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Tooele. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 75% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 23% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVI-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 61% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 38% 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- 47% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 39% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 14% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 47% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 47% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 36% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 49% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 15% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 34% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 63% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 66% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 9% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 71% 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 Tooele between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Community wellbeing was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints (versus Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference) and those living in Tooele 5 years or less.

  • Connection with nature was more likely to decline for those living in Tooele more than 5 years.

  • Cultural opportunities were more likely to decline for those living age 60+ (versus age 18-39), female respondents, and those with a college degree.

  • Education was more likely to decline for those living in Tooele more than 5 years.

  • Leisure time was more likely to decline for those living in Tooele more than 5 years.

  • Mental health was more likely to decline for those living in Tooele more than 5 years.

  • Safety and security were more likely to decline for those with lower incomes.

  • Social connections were more likely to decline for female respondents.


The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Tooele City residents. Note that the survey method was different in 2019 (with iPads in public places) and the number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Tooele, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2019- 4.0, 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.6; Category: Safety and security- 2019-3.8, 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.35; Category: Connection with Nature- 2019-3.75, 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.2, Category: Education- 2019- 3.9, 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.25; Category: Physical Health: 2019- 3.95, 2020- 3.2, 2021- 3.1; Category: Mental Health- 2019-3.5, 2020- 3.25, 2021- 3.3; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2019- 3.5, 2020- 3.0, 2021- 3.15; Category: Leisure Time- 2019- 3.6, 2020- 3.1, 2021- 3.2, Category: Social Connection- 2019- 3.75, 2020- 3.2; 2021- 2.85, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2019- 3.4, 2020- 3.65, 2021- 2.55.

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 Tooele City respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with 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. Color indicates strongest relationships (p < .05). Religion was found to be quite influential regarding the rating of wellbeing.

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Tooele

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +
vs 40-59 		 +   +

    
Wellbeing in Tooele + +   + vs A/A/NP    
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education       +
    
Leisure Time       + vs A/A/NP    
Living Standards   +     + vs A/A/NP    
Local Environmental Quality       +
    
Mental Health +     + vs A/A/NP    
Physical Health +
vs 40-59		       + vs A/A/NP    
Safety & Security    +
  +  + vs A/A/NP    
Social Connections       + vs A/A/NP    
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities      +
      
Education   +         
Leisure Time            
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality       - vs Other    
Mental Health    +        
Physical Health  +
vs 18-39		  +        
Safety & Security    +   - vs Other    
Social Connections    +   + vs A/A/NP     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions

Community Action & Connections in Tooele

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Tooele City. 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 City, the average score was 2.97. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.81.

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: 8% of respondents; 2: 26% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 27% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 6% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Tooele. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Tooele as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 14% of respondents; 2: 29% of respondents; 3: 25% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% of respondents

Respondents age 60+, females, those identifying as Latter-day Saints had higher perceptions of local action. Respondents identifying as Latter-day Saints, those with higher income, and those living in Tooele for more than 5 years reported higher levels of community connection. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). 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 Tooele take action? +
 +   +    
Do you feel connected to your community?       + + -


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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Tooele. Of the 10 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 48 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 92 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 62% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 31 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 45% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 55% 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. Tooele is in the mid-range on perceived community action and 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 Tooele City was 2.76. Church group activities (73%) were the most common activities for respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Tooele. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 52% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 28% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 31% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 33% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 30% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 33% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 9% 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 Tooele Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 92% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 63% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 72% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 21% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 36% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 30% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 28% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 25% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 61% indicated neither, 14% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 41% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 54% indicated neither, 4% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Tooele survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (67%), followed by 24% indicating it was just right. Respondents were more split on the pace of economic development with 37% indicating too slow, 29% just right, and 28% indicating too fast.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Tooele? Data – 2% of respondents rated too slow; 24% of respondents rated just right; 67% of respondents rated too fast, 7% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Tooele? Data – 37% of respondents rated too slow; 29% of respondents rated just right; 28% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Tooele 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 Tooele

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Tooele City. Roads and Transportation, Water Supply, Recreation Opportunities, and Economic Opportunities were top concerns with 82-89% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Spanish Fork. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Tooele, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% 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 – 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 43 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Other Concerns Mentioned

Traffic, including noise and speeding (6)

City through-streets north/south, need connecting roads (2)

Old buildings, sidewalks falling apart (2)

Overdevelopment, too many homes (2)

Roads (overcrowded, infrastructure) (2)

 Weather 

Better financial decisions

Businesses (less Wal Mart)

City landlocked from earthquakes or fire, or railroad collapse

Code enforcement

Crime

Dog park

Dog poop in parks

Fiber internet connectivity for affordable housing market

Freedoms and rights in jeopardy

Government inaction

Government overreach

High density housing

Infrastructure

 Litter 

Not enough jobs

Quality Education

Parks and walking trails would add to community

Police need to get rid of dope houses

Schools for adults and kids

 Taxes 

Temporary homeless shelters

Too many confrontational people

Transportation

 Walking safety

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Tooele 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 in response to “Please tell us what you value most about living in Tooele”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Tooele. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –Category: Social Climate- 108 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small-Town feel, Connected, Friendly, Family-Friendly, Diverse. Category: Natural Resources- 41 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Farmland/ Open Space, Good air and water Quality, Other. Category: City Character- 40 mentions, Good Location, Quiet and Peaceful, Good Quality of Life. Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 52 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Low Housing Costs and Large Lot Sizes, Feels Safe, Abundant Cultural Opportunities, Good Economy, Abundant Recreation, Good Schools, Well-Governed, 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.ucsu.edu/non-discrimination.