Tremonton 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

Tremonton 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 Tremonton 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, Tremonton City advertised the survey via social media, the city newsletter, and the city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 337 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 78.6% complete responses.
  • The adult population of Tremonton was estimated at 5,787, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 337 survey responses in 2022 represent 5.8% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.18%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Tremonton was above average among the 33 study cities, while Community Wellbeing was below average. 

Domain ratings varied by demographics characteristics, with age and income particularly influential. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Mental Health
  • Safety and Security
  • 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 33% of respondents and community wellbeing declined for 56%. 

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development were too fast.

Top concerns for the future of Tremonton were:

  • Water Supply (91% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Public Safety (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
Education and overcrowded schools were a common concern found in respondent open comments.

What do people value most about Tremonton?
Positive social climate, peace and quiet, agriculture, sense of safety, and the small, rural feel of the town.

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 Tremonton 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 Tremonton 96.7%
Part Time Residents of Tremonton 3.3%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5- 74 years
Length of Residency — Average 19.6 years
Length of Residency — Median 15 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 23.4%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were 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 Tremonton. People who are female, age 40-49, have at least a 4-year college degree, have children in the household, are married, are employed, own their home, and those with household incomes between $75,000 and $149,999 were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29, are Hispanic/Latino, 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 Tremonton

Demographic Characteristics Tremonton Wellbeing Survey American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2022
337 Respondents
Age 18-29 10.6% 22.7%
Age 30-39 29.4% 24.4%
Age 40-49 29.4% 16.0%
Age 50-59 16.6% 12.9%
Age 60-69 8.3% 11.1%
Age 70 or over 5.7% 12.9%
Adult Female 67.8% 46.3%
Adult Male 31.1% 53.7%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 1.1% NA
No college degree 63.0% 82.9%
College degree (4-year) 37.0% 17.1%
Median household income NA $59,488
Income under $25,000 4.2% 13.0%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 10.4% 25.8%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 23.2% 31.5%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 28.6% 14.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 21.6% 10.9%
Income $150,000 or over 12.0% 4.6%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 68.0% NA
Other religion 13.5% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 18.5% NA
Hispanic/Latino 3.8% 14.0%
White 97.2% 92.6%
Nonwhite 2.8% 7.4%
Married 89.7% 61.5%
Children under 18 in household 68.7% 43.4%
Employed 77.7% 62.6%
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 1.6%
Other 22.3% 35.8%
Own home/Owner occupied 88.7% 67.7%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 11.3% 32.3%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Tremonton

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Tremonton. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Tremonton was 4.10 with 82% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Tremonton was 3.33 with 44% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. 

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Tremonton. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 16% of respondents; 4: 54% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 28% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Tremonton. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Tremonton? Data - 1 Very Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 34% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 11% of respondents

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 33% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 26% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing had improved in that time. For community wellbeing, 56% of respondents indicated it had declined in the last year and 13% indicated it had improved. 

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Tremonton. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 5%; Declined slightly: 28%; No change: 39%; Improved slightly: 19%; Improved Substantially: 7%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Tremonton. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Moab changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 17%; Declined slightly: 39%; No change: 30%; Improved slightly: 10%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Tremonton as a Rural Hub/Resort Community (and we have combined these with the Traditional Rural Communities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the Rural city cluster, Tremonton fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and below average in terms of average community wellbeing score. Tremonton was statistically significantly higher than East Carbon and Moab in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Tremonton was statistically significantly higher than Moab, but significantly lower than Ephraim, Beaver, Bluff, and Helper. 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 Tremonton

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 Tremonton were Physical Health (68%), Mental Health (66%), Living Standards (64%), and Safety and Security (63%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (96%), Safety and Security (96%), Living Standards (92%), and Physical Health (89%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Tremonton. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 50% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 50% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 70% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 30% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Tremonton. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: 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 - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 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 - 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% 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 – 23% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 77% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 42% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 58% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Tremonton

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Tremonton. Physical Health, Mental Health, Living Standards, and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No domains fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings. However, Education and Leisure Time approached this zone. 

Scatterplot. Title: Tremonton 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. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Local Environmental Quality, Leisure Time, Education, and Social Connections. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: None.

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. Improvements were reported in Connection with Nature for 22% of respondents. 

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Tremonton. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 53% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 45% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 43% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 55% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 40% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 59% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 29% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time - 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 64% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 10% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 67% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 74% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 14% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 63% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 22% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 23% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 73% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 75% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

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 Tremonton 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 Tremonton

  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            
Wellbeing in Tremonton            
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities +
          
Education +   +
 +
vs A/A/NRP		    
Leisure Time + +   +
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		  
Living Standards + +        
Local Environmental Quality +
vs 18-39		       +
vs Under $75,000		  
Mental Health +       +
vs Under $75,000		  
Physical Health              
Safety & Security     +
   +
vs Under $75,000- $99,999		 +
Social Connections +
 +
   +
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education   +        
Leisure Time            
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health   + 
 +      
Physical Health +   +      
Safety and Security            
Social Connections             
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection in Tremonton

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Tremonton. 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 Tremonton, the average score was 3.12. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 2.92.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Tremonton. Subtitle: In Tremonton, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 5% of respondents; 2: 21% of respondents; 3: 39% of respondents; 4: 24% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 10% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Tremonton. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Tremonton as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 13% of respondents; 2: 23% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 11% 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 Tremonton 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 Tremonton. Of the 3 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 44 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 162 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 74% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 73 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 48% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% 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. Tremonton 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. Gardening (76%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (75%) and non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (70%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Tremonton. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 70% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 75% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 55% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 65% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 76% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 49% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 48% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 46% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Tremonton respondents, participating in city recreation programs was positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Participating in city recreation programs and walking a pet in the city were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

Participating in motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters, participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to community connections. 

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, farmland, 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 Tremonton 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, 4% indicated neither, 96% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 11% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 20% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 53% indicated neither, 46% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 59% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 39% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 25% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 53% indicated neither, 14% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 48% indicated neither, 24% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Tremonton survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (83%). On the pace of economic development, 56% indicated it was too fast, 21% just right, and 16% too slow.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Tremonton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Tremonton? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 11% of respondents rated just right; 83% of respondents rated too fast; 4% of respondents rated no opinion.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Tremonton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Tremonton? Data – 16% of respondents rated too slow; 21% of respondents rated just right; 56% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Tremonton 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 Tremonton

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Tremonton. Water Supply, Roads and Transportation, Affordable Housing, and Public Safety were the top three concerns with at least 79% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Tremonton. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Tremonton, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Water Supply- 9% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 91% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% 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: Employment Opportunities- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Category: Climate Change- 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 56 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Education, overcrowded schools (15) Restaurants (3)
Common courtesy, values (4) Infrastructure (3)
High density housing (4) Swimming pool 
Government, city council (4) Animal control 
Overdevelopment (4) Parking
Overpopulation (4) Inability to receive city communication
timely or understand the city issues

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Tremonton and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Tremonton overwhelmingly valued the social climate, this includes comments about the small, rural feel of the town. Peace and quiet found in Tremonton were of value to residents, as well as agriculture and the sense of safety.  In the additional comments section many residents shared concerns about the growth and development, worried that it is currently too fast. There were also comments about the government, with many residents worried about not being heard. There were also comments about housing, specifically about the loss of single-family homes.  

On This Page