Tooele Wellbeing Survey Findings 2022

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

Tooele City is one of 33 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2022. 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.

We are grateful to all participants who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. Additionally, we are grateful to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and USU Extension for their financial support.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2022 Tooele survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in March of 2022, Tooele City advertised the survey via social media, the city website, a marquee sign, and the city newsletter. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 322 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 84.2% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Tooele survey had 210 responses and the 2020 Tooele survey had 252 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Tooele was estimated at 24,565, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 322 survey responses in 2022 represent 1.3% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.43%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Tooele were below average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Tooele declined between 2021 and 2022. 

Domain ratings and importance varied by demographic characteristics with age, religion, and income being particularly influential. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 38% of respondents and community wellbeing was declined for 45%. 

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:

  • Water Supply (92% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (86% Moderate or Major Concern
  • Affordable Housing (83% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (80% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Tooele?
The sense of community and the surrounding nature, including the mountains and canyons. 

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

In addition to providing partner cities with the opportunity to take part in surveys, the Utah Wellbeing Project has worked to provide curated resources for community leaders and citizens that aim to improve specific aspects of wellbeing. These Wellbeing Resources can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website, along with other useful tools and information.

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Tooele City, key wellbeing issues include: Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Roads and Transportation. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Tooele 97.5%
Part Time Residents of Tooele 2.5%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 81 years
Length of Residency — Average 16.9 years
Length of Residency — Median 12 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 31.7%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 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 the household were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those with household incomes between $25,000 and $49,999 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below.

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Tooele

Demographic Characteristics Tooele Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
252
Respondents		 Online 2021
210 Respondents		 Online 2022
322 Respondents
Age 18-29 15.2% 9.1% 7.4% 25.4%
Age 30-39 29.5% 33.5% 28.5% 20.9%
Age 40-49 24.1% 29.0% 30.0% 20.1%
Age 50-59 16.5% 14.2% 18.5% 12.5%
Age 60-69 9.4% 9.1% 9.6% 10.6%
Age 70 or over 5.4% 5.1% 5.9% 10.5%
Adult Female 76.2% 68.6% 73.0% 50.8%
Adult Male 23.8% 31.4% 25.9% 49.2%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 1.1% NA
No college degree 64.7% 58.5% 54.2% 84.2%
College degree (4-year) 35.3% 41.5% 45.8% 15.8%
Median household income NA NA NA $65,740
Income under $25,000 4.1% 4.6% 2.6% 10.7%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 23.4% 17.1% 12.4% 23.4%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 26.6% 26.3% 23.3% 23.4%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 22.5% 18.9% 24.7% 16.5%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 18.8% 26.3% 24.7% 20.4%
Income $150,000 or over 4.6% 6.9% 11.2% 5.6%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 55.0% 55.5% 48.5% NA
Other religion 18.0% 22.5% 22.2% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 27.0% 22.0% 29.3% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 8.6% 5.6% 14.1%
White 93.6% 92.4% 92.5% 86.6%
Nonwhite 6.4% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 7.6% 7.5% 13.4%
Married 79.7% 86.3% 78.1% 53.4%
Children under 18 in household 60.5% 64.6% 55.4% 45.4%
Employed 63.9% 65.9% 68.1% 65.1%
Out of work and looking for work 2.7% 2.8% 1.5% 3.8%
Other 33.6% 31.3% 30.4% 31.1%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 89.2% 88.1% 79.3%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 10.8% 11.9% 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. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Tooele was 3.76 with 63% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Tooele was 3.15 with 32% 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: 1% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 21% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Tooele? Data - 1 Very Poor: 5% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 45% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 9% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Tooele over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score remained nearly the same each year. The community wellbeing score increased between 2020 and 2021, but declined between 2021 and 2022. 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: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Tooele. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated 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, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 3.76, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.15

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 Pandemic has dominated the last couple of years. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or community wellbeing changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 38% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 30% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing had improved in that time. For community wellbeing, 45% of respondents indicated it had declined in the last year and 17% indicated it had improved.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Tooele. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 7%; Declined slightly: 31%; No change: 31%; Improved slightly: 22%; Improved Substantially: 8%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Santaquin. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Moab changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 11%; Declined slightly: 34%; No change: 37%; Improved slightly: 14%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Tooele as a Mid-Sized City (and we have combined these with Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the more urban city cluster, Tooele City was lowest in the cluster in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Tooele was significantly lower than all other cities in the cluster besides Logan and Midvale in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Tooele was significantly lower than all others except Midvale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.27; Millcreek: Average Score 4.24; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 4.19; Layton: Average Score 4.16; Bountiful: Average Score 4.09; Sandy: Average Score 4.07; South Jordan: Average Score 4.06; West Jordan: Average Score 4.03; Midvale: Average Score 3.94; Logan: Average Score 3.89; Tooele: Average Score 3.76. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Vineyard: Average Score 4.31; Highland: Average Score 4.28; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.25; Nibley: Average Score 4.20; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.15; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Lehi: Average Score 4.10; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.02; Santaquin: Average Score 3.98; Herriman: Average Score 3.87. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Beaver: Average Score 4.18; Helper: Average Score 4.15; Nephi: Average Score 4.11; Tremonton: Average Score 4.10; Park City: Average Score 4.04; Bluff: Average Score 3.96; Ephraim: Average Score 3.89; Delta: Average Score 3.88; Blanding: Average Score: 3.85; Price: Average Score 3.83; East Carbon: Average Score: 3.73; Moab: Average Score: 3.50. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.03; South Jordan: Average Score 4.02; Bountiful: Average Score 3.84; Sandy: Average Score 3.79; Millcreek: Average Score 3.79; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 3.72; Layton: Average Score 3.71; West Jordan: Average Score 3.55; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Midvale: Average Score 3.24; Tooele: Average Score 3.15. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Highland: Average Score 4.15; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.05; North Logan: Average Score 3.99; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.98; Nibley: Average Score 3.87; Vineyard: Average Score 3.84; Santaquin: Average Score 3.72; Lehi: Average Score 3.61; Herriman: Average Score 3.49; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Helper: Average Score 4.09; Bluff: Average Score 3.84; Beaver: Average Score 3.82; Ephraim: Average Score 3.75; Nephi: Average Score 3.62; Park City: Average Score 3.50; Delta: Average Score 3.44; Blanding: Average Score 3.44; Tremonton: Average Score: 3.32; Price: Average Score 3.15; East Carbon: Average Score: 2.98; Moab: Average Score: 2.84. 

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 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 four highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Tooele were Living Standards (56%), Mental Health (55%), Safety and Security (53%), and Physical Health (50%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (97%), Mental Health (96%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (89%).

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: Connection with Nature - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 67% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 33% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 57% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 43% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 66% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 34% 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? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 28% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 72% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 31% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Education – 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% 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.

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. Living Standards, Mental Health, Safety and Security, and Physical Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No domains fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings. However, Leisure Time approached this zone. 

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, Physical Health, Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature and Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Local Environmental Quality, Leisure Time, and Social Connections. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: None.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Tooele

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Tooele residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Tooele, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.4; Category: Safety and Security- 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.35, 2022- 3.4; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.45, 2021- 3.2, 2022- 3.3, Category: Education- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.25, 2022- 3.3; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.2, 2021- 3.1, 2022 3.4; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.25, 2021- 3.3, 2022- 3.4; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.0, 2021- 3.15, 2022- 2.95; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.1, 2021- 3.2, 2022- 3.1, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.15, 2021- 2.85; 2022- 2.95, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.65, 2021- 2.5, 2022- 2.55.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 Pandemic's impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections, Mental Health, and Cultural Opportunities. 

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- 59% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 39% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 52% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 44% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 49% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 49% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 41% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 53% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 35% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 51% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 13% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 37% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 58% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 62% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 17% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 28% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 62% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 27% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 70% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

An additional question was asked regarding impacts from COVID-19. The most common impacts indicated by respondents include Feelings of Anxiety (58%), Loss of Social Connections (53%), and Financial Impacts (41%). 


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID Pandemic’s Effects in Tooele. Subtitle: Please indicate, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not at all and 5 being affected a great deal), the extent to which the COVID Pandemic has affected your household in the following ways. Data: feelings of anxiety 42% rated a 1 or 2 and 58% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Loss of social connection 47% rated a 1 or 2 and 53% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Financial impacts 59% rated a 1 or 2 and 41% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Educational challenges 60% rated a 1 or 2 and 40% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Health impacts 68% rated a 1 or 2 and 32% rated a 3, 4, or 5. Job loss 81% rated a 1 or 2 and 19% rated a 3, 4, or 5.

When asked to describe other ways they had been affected by the COVID Pandemic, Tooele respondents most frequently mentioned the following themes:

  • Lack of social connections and increased isolation or divisiveness in the community
  • Diminished quality of life
  • Poor government response
  • Lack of goods and services available
  • Poor educational outcomes for youth

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables for age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships among Tooele respondents as shown in the table below based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data. The +/- sign indicates whether the wellbeing score in the specific demographic group was significantly higher or lower than the reference group in each demographic variable (p<.05). 

Table 3
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Tooele

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing       + 
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000-
$99,999		  
Wellbeing in Tooele       + 
vs A/A/NRP		   + 
Connection with Nature +
vs 18-39		          
Cultural Opportunities       +
   +
Education     + 
 + 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Leisure Time + 
vs 18-39		     + 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Living Standards       + 
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality       + 
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000-
$99,999		 + 
Mental Health +
       +
  
Physical Health           +
vs Under $75,000 		  
Safety & Security     + 
 + 
vs A/A/NRP		   + 
Social Connections     + 

 + 
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000-
$99,999		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature       -
vs Other		    
Cultural Opportunities - 
vs 40-59		     - -  
Education -     + 
vs A/A/NRP		    
Leisure Time - 
vs 40-59		          
Living Standards - 
vs 18-39		 +     +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		 -
Local Environmental Quality   + 
   -
vs Other		    
Mental Health   + 
   + 
vs Other		    
Physical Health            
Safety and Security   +

        
Social Connections   +   +
vs A/A/NRP
     
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Tooele

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection 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 2.91. 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: 11% of respondents; 2: 23% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 22% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% 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: 18% of respondents; 2: 21% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 20% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Tooele take action?       + 
vs A/A/NRP 		    
Do you feel connected to your community?

    + 
vs A/A/NRP		    

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 22 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 95% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 5% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 85 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 82% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 18% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 120 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 69% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 56 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 50% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% 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 was in the lower half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 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: Hyde Park 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: Highland 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: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 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: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% 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: South Jordan 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: Vineyard 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: Millcreek 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: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 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: Santaquin 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: Moab 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: Tremonton 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: Layton 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 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: Sandy 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: Tooele 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: Logan 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: Lehi 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: Herriman 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: Cottonwood Heights 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: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; 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; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% 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 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 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: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 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: 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: Hyde Park- 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: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 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: South Jordan- 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- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 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: Nibley- 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: Santaquin- 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: Moab- 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: Layton- 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: East Carbon- 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: Sandy- 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: Tremonton- 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: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 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: Lehi- 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: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (82%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by gardening (73%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (65%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Tooele. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 65% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 82% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 33% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 61% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 73% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 32% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 53% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 50% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Tooele respondents, recreating in city parks, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, and gardening were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, and gardening were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing and community connection.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, rivers and streams, trails, and lakes 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 - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 57% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 50% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 29% indicated neither, 21% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 37% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 33% indicated neither, 30% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 46% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 12% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 38% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 17% 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 (78%). Respondents were more divided on the pace of economic development with 40% indicating it was too slow, 40% too fast, and 14% just right.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Tooele. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Tooele? Data – 3% of respondents rated too slow; 14% of respondents rated just right; 78% of respondents rated too fast; 5% 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 – 4% of respondents rated too slow; 14% of respondents rated just right; 40% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Tooele have varied across recent Wellbeing Surveys. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable decrease in the number of people indicating that the current rates of population growth and economic development are just righ (down to 14% for both issues in 2022), with a similar increase in those who felt that both are too fast (up to 78% and 40% respectively in 2022). 

Type: Line Title: Tooele Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 3% rated too slow, 20% rated just right, 70% rated too fast 2021: 2% rated too slow, 24% rated just right, 67% rated too fast 2022: 3% rated too slow, 14% rated just right, 78% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Tooele Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 63% rated too slow, 17% rated just right, 10% rated too fast 2021: 37% rated too slow, 29% rated just right, 28% rated too fast 2022: 40% rated too slow, 14% rated just right, 40% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Tooele compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development in 2022. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Graph 23: Population Growth Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: 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: Logan – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Draper – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 56% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 51% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek - 1% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 66% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast;City: Highland – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 82% of respondents rated too fast;City: Tremonton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 60% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 40% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast.  Graph 24: Economic Development Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: 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, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 41% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Jordan – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 34% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 22% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 49% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: Highland – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 29% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 77% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tremonton – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 45% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 31% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 30% of respondents rated too slow, 18% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 61% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 67% 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. Water Supply, Roads and Transportation, Affordable Housing, and Air Quality were the top four concerns with at least 80% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Tooele. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Tooele, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 8% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 92% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; 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. Climate Change- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 46 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Overpopulation, overcrowding (6) Cost of living Pollution
Community activities, opportunities (5) High density housing (2) Great Salt Lake
Overdevelopment (4) Traffic, traffic safety (2) Taxes
Infrastructure (3) Education (2) Noise pollution
Walkability (3) Community attitude Gravel trucks
Government (3) Businesses Mosquitoes

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Tooele and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Tooele. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, most of Tooele residents valued the social climate-many valuing the sense of community and friendly people. Tooele residents also valued nature and beauty, especially the mountains and nearby canyons. City image (small, clean city) and recreation was also valued. The additional comment section included comments on the growth and development; many were concerned about the infrastructure needed to sustain the quick growth. Other comments were made about recreation, residents wanted more recreational opportunities, especially for the youth. Others expressed the desire for more diversity in shopping and dining. There were also comments on transportation, especially for better road conditions.  

On This Page