Toquerville Wellbeing Survey Findings 2026

By Dr. Courtney Flint, Nicolas Holden, and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Toquerville is one of 57 cities and towns participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2026. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform general planning processes. Additional analysis is underway, and this report may be updated over time.

We are grateful to all those who took the survey and to our city partners who helped make this possible. A special thank you goes to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the following cities for funding this project: Cedar City, Delta, Heber, La Verkin, South Weber, Vernal, West Bountiful, and West Valley City. We also acknowledge support from the Institute for Disability Research, Policy & Practice (IDRPP).

This report describes findings from the 2026 Toquerville survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In April 2026, Toquerville City advertised the survey for residents. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey. Cities and towns generally advertised the survey through newsletters, social media, emails, or other various efforts.

How many people responded?

  • 127 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The adult population of Toquerville was estimated at 1,672, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 127 survey responses in 2026 represent 7.6% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 8.36%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Toquerville 96.1%
Part Time Residents of Toquerville 3.9%
Length of Residency — Range 0.1-66 years
Length of Residency — Average 12.8 years
Length of Residency — Median 8 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 28.2%
City Area Percent
Surrounding Area 6.3%
Toquerville 93.7%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2020-2024 American Community Survey. In the graph below, gray bars indicate differences between the American Community Survey estimates and the Utah Wellbeing Project surveys. The wider the gray bars, the larger the differences. Also note that estimates for religious affiliation, adult non-conforming or non-binary gender, disability, and chronic conditions are unavailable from the census data. There can also be a variable margin of error in the American Community Survey estimates, and caution should be used when comparing estimates. Not all respondents provided demographic information. As the graph shows, 2026 survey respondents were not fully representative of Toquerville. People who are age 60-69, have at least a 4-year college degree, have an income $75,000 to $99,999, or are married were overrepresented, while those who are age 18-29 or do not have a college degree were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Toquerville 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 21%, UWS: 4%; Age 30-39: ACS: 13%, UWS: 9%; Age 40-49: ACS: 24%, UWS: 12%; Age 50-59: ACS: 11%, UWS: 14%; Age 60-69: ACS: 13%, UWS: 28%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 18%, UWS: 33%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 7%, UWS: 1%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 11%, UWS: 9%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 18%, UWS: 16%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 14%, UWS: 30%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 28%, UWS: 27%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 21%, UWS: 17%; Adult Female: ACS: 47%, UWS: 56%; Adult Male: ACS: 53%, UWS: 44%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 0%; Employed: ACS: 59%, UWS: 49%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 1%, UWS: 1%; Other: ACS: 40%, UWS: 50%; No College Degree: ACS: 65%, UWS: 46%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 35%, UWS: 54%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 9%, UWS: 9%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 91%, UWS: 91%; Married: ACS: 62%, UWS: 81%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 40%, UWS: 27%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 11%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 27%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 7%, UWS: 4%; Nonwhite: ACS: 12%, UWS: 6%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 44%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 24%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 32%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Toquerville

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Toquerville. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Toquerville was 4.24 with 84% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Toquerville was 3.83 with 68% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Toquerville. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 12% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 45% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Toquerville. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Toquerville? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns clusters cities and towns into five different categories based on size and growth rates. We utilize these clusters in our analysis. Toquerville is classified as a Traditional Rural Community. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. Each cluster average represents the mean of the city and town means within each cluster.

Within the Rural city cluster, Toquerville was well above the average overall personal wellbeing score and above the average overall community wellbeing score.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.73; Ogden Average Score 3.80; West Jordan Average Score 4.00; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Sandy Average Score 4.23; South Jordan Average Score 4.25; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.66; Logan Average Score 3.79; Cedar City Average Score 3.80; Woods Cross Average Score 4.03; Murray Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.07; South Ogden Average Score 4.16; West Bountiful Average Score 4.20; Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Lindon Average Score 4.23; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.27; Alpine Average Score 4.35; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.35; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Lehi Average Score 3.88; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.92; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.95; Grantsville Average Score 3.97; Mapleton Average Score 4.00; Wellsville Average Score 4.04; Enoch Average Score 4.08; Herriman Average Score 4.08; Bluffdale Average Score 4.16; Kamas Average Score 4.19; Kaysville Average Score 4.19; South Weber Average Score 4.20; Providence Average Score 4.26; Uintah City Average Score 4.34; Ivins Average Score 4.45; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 3.67; Tremonton Average Score 3.72; Vernal Average Score 3.75; Blanding Average Score 3.78; Moab Average Score 3.81; Bluff Average Score 3.98; Richfield Average Score 3.99; Nephi Average Score 4.01; Manila Average Score 4.13; Heber Average Score 4.19; Morgan Average Score 4.23; Springdale Average Score 4.27; Midway Average Score 4.38; Alta Average Score 4.44; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Delta Average Score 3.77; Ferron Average Score 3.89; Stockton Average Score 3.92; Orangeville Average Score 3.96; La Verkin Average Score 3.97; Lake Point Average Score 4.13; Lewiston Average Score 4.22; Toquerville Average Score 4.24; Mayfield Average Score 4.27

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.19; West Valley City Average Score 3.22; West Jordan Average Score 3.53; Millcreek Average Score 3.81; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.06; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.06; Cedar City Average Score 3.23; Logan Average Score 3.42; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.71; Woods Cross Average Score 3.74; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.81; Murray Average Score 3.86; Bountiful Average Score 3.93; South Ogden Average Score 3.99; Alpine Average Score 4.04; West Bountiful Average Score 4.06; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.16; Lindon Average Score 4.24; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Grantsville Average Score 3.08; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.29; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.38; Kamas Average Score 3.50; Lehi Average Score 3.56; Herriman Average Score 3.66; Enoch Average Score 3.69; Mapleton Average Score 3.71; South Weber Average Score 3.75; Bluffdale Average Score 3.78; Wellsville Average Score 3.93; Kaysville Average Score 3.95; Ivins Average Score 4.00; Providence Average Score 4.03; Uintah City Average Score 4.13; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 2.92; Tremonton Average Score 2.94; Moab Average Score 3.12; Vernal Average Score 3.21; Blanding Average Score 3.33; Heber Average Score 3.51; Manila Average Score 3.51; Nephi Average Score 3.51; Richfield Average Score 3.57; Springdale Average Score 3.71; Bluff Average Score 3.80; Morgan Average Score 3.89; Alta Average Score 4.15; Midway Average Score 4.24; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Stockton Average Score 3.30; Delta Average Score 3.35; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Lake Point Average Score 3.62; Orangeville Average Score 3.72; Ferron Average Score 3.76; Toquerville Average Score 3.83; Lewiston Average Score 3.99; Mayfield Average Score 4.08

Wellbeing Domains in Toquerville

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. Survey respondents rated twelve domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. 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 highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Toquerville were Living Standards (89%), Family Life (88%), and Safety and Security (88%). The most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (94%), Safety and Security (92%), Physical Health (92%), Living Standards (92%), and Leisure Time (91%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Toquerville. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Living Standards - 11% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 89% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Family Life - 12% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 88% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 12% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 88% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 17% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 83% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 21% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 79% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 23% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 77% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 28% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 72% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 30% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 70% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 33% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 67% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 45% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 55% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 56% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 44% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 65% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 35% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Toquerville. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Mental Health - 6% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 94% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Living Standards - 8% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 92% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Physical Health - 8% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 92% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Safety and Security - 8% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 92% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Leisure Time - 9% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 91% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Family Life -11% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 89% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -11% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 89% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Connection with Nature -14% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 86% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections -36% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 64% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Transportation -39% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 61% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -44% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 56% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -47% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 53% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Matrix for Toquerville

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Toquerville. Connection with Nature, Family Life, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Local Environmental Quality fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings.

Scatterplot. Title: Toquerville Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: 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 domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Family Life, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Education, Social Connections, and Transportation; Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality

Community Connection in Toquerville

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Toquerville on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.18.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Toquerville. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Toquerville as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 8% of respondents; 2: 25% of respondents; 3: 29% of respondents; 4: 17% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 21% of respondents

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and mental health, and to some extent between community connection and overall personal wellbeing.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Toquerville. Data — Of the 17 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 2, 3, 88% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 12% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 45 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 56% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 44 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 59% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Toquerville. Data — Of the 17 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 2, 3, 94% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 6% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 41 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 61% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 48 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 52% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

The graph below shows how Wellbeing Project cities and towns compare on feelings of community connection based on the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or a 5 on a 5-point scale from “1 Not at all” to “5 A great deal” connected to their city or town. Toquerville ranked 35 out of the 57 cities that participated.

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 and 5 being a great deal. Data — City: Bluff 35% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 65% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Uintah City 39% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 61% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 40% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 60% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lindon 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alta 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Midway 45% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 55% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Morgan 46% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Murray 49% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 50% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kamas 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ogden 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ivins 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Moab 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mayfield 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wendover 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ferron 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Delta 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Springdale 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Richfield 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Orangeville 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Weber 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lewiston 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Heber 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Manila 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Nephi 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Enoch 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 61% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 39% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Sandy 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Toquerville 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kaysville 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Logan 64% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Vernal 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bluffdale 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Blanding 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Herriman 66% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Providence 67% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lake Point 68% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 69% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Woods Cross 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 71% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tooele 73% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 27% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Stockton 74% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lehi 75% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 76% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Eagle Mountain 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Grantsville 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5

Disability in Toquerville

Survey participants were asked how well Toquerville included individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities. The largest proportion of respondents indicated they had no opinion or that the question was not relevant (38%). For those expressing an opinion, respondents were split between opinions that they were quite well (23%) or somewhat (22%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Toquerville. Subtitle: How well does Toquerville include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 8% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 22% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 23% of respondents; 4 Fully: 10% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 38% of respondents

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they participated in various activities over the past year. The activities in which respondents most commonly participated at least sometimes (about once a month or more frequently) were Gardening at home (83%) and Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (79%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Toquerville. Subtitle: How often have you participated in any of the following activities over the past year? Data — Category: Gardening at home - 17% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 83% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city - 21% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 79% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Using trails in or near your city - 33% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 67% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Recreating in parks in your city - 37% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 63% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 38% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 62% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Buying food from a farmer's market - 47% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 53% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Community events - 49% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 51% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 51% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 49% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: City recreation programs - 61% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 39% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week)

Higher levels of community connection correlated with more frequent participation in community events, recreation in parks in your city, and participation in city recreation programs.

Wellbeing and Urban/Rural Settings

Respondents were asked to indicate how important spending time in the different settings were to their wellbeing. The most important setting for Toquerville respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Toquerville. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 14% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 86% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 43% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 57% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 47% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 53% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 80% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 20% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Toquerville indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (72%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was just right (42%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Toquerville. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Toquerville? Data — Too Slow: 1% of respondents; Just Right: 24% of respondents; Too Fast: 72% of respondents; No Opinion: 4% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Toquerville. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Toquerville? Data — Too Slow: 20% of respondents; Just Right: 42% of respondents; Too Fast: 31% of respondents; No Opinion: 7% of respondents

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Toquerville compared to other participating cities and towns in the Traditional Rural Communities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Traditional Rural Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Lake Point - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% just right, 76% too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Mayfield - 5% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 15% just right, 75% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Toquerville - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 72% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: La Verkin - 4% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 31% just right, 61% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Stockton - 6% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 53% too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Lewiston - 8% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 46% just right, 40% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Delta - 15% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% just right, 33% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Orangeville - 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 53% just right, 17% too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Ferron - 17% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 50% just right, 17% too fast, and 17% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Traditional Rural Communities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: La Verkin - 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% just right, 52% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Toquerville - 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% just right, 31% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Lake Point - 43% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 20% just right, 31% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Lewiston - 15% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 51% just right, 28% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Delta - 35% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 30% just right, 27% too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Stockton - 28% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 30% just right, 25% too fast, and 17% had no opinion; City: Mayfield - 38% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% just right, 24% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Ferron - 42% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 31% just right, 17% too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Orangeville - 50% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 33% just right, 8% too fast, and 8% had no opinion

Survey respondents were asked if there are any aspects of the local economy they would like to see changed in the next five years. Respondents generally expressed a desire to maintain the town’s small-town character and slow down its rapid growth, citing concerns about infrastructure, traffic congestion, and strain on local resources. They emphasized the importance of planning and governance, suggesting that development should be thoughtful and strategic, with a focus on preserving the community’s rural culture. Many respondents also highlighted the need for more local businesses, restaurants, and shopping options, as well as improved access to trails, water availability, and affordable housing.

Cost of Living in Toquerville

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Toquerville. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (40%) and Healthcare (33%). Note that a high percentage (80%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Toquerville. Subtitle: How EASY or DIFFICULT is it for your household to COVER EXPENSES related to the following? Among respondents for whom each expense was relevant; 'Not relevant' shown separately. Data — Category: Childcare - 80% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 40% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 60% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Healthcare - 5% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 33% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 67% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 7% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 27% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 73% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Utilities - 3% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 20% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 80% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Food - 5% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 18% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 82% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 18% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 18% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 82% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Toquerville

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Toquerville. The most problematic barriers were Cost (50%) and Travel time (39%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Toquerville. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 50% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 50% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 61% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 39% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 75% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 25% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 82% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 18% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 84% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 16% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 85% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 15% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 88% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 12% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 98% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 2% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Concerns in Toquerville

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Toquerville. Water Supply (88%), Traffic (69%), and Water Quality (69%) were the top concerns.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Toquerville. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Toquerville, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Water Supply - 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation 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 Healthy/Quality Food - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Use - 80% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 20% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 82% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 18% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 88% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 12% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here. The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including the Llama 3 large language model, accessed locally through Ollama, and a machine learning classifier, in the analysis of open comments. These tools were used for initial topical coding and draft summaries of comments. All comments, codes, and summaries were reviewed and edited by the authors for accuracy and clarity.

What Respondents Value Most in Toquerville

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Toquerville. The most common words and phrases from all comments are included in the word cloud below. It is possible that negative or unrelated words may appear since these words have been taken out of context, and they may not indicate the respondent’s intended meaning.

Respondents valued the community’s peaceful and quiet atmosphere, highlighting the rural feel, small town charm, and natural beauty of the area. Many valued the sense of community and friendly atmosphere, as well as the open spaces and lack of crowded streets. The minimal traffic and serene night skies were also frequently mentioned as desirable aspects of the community.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Toquerville includes: small town, quiet, people, town feel, community, neighbors, living, peaceful, open space, peace, safe, traffic, and wonderful.

Local Environmental Quality in Toquerville

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Toquerville. The dominant theme among local environmental concerns was the impact of rapid development on the natural environment and quality of life. Respondents expressed worry about the loss of open spaces, increased dust and pollution from construction, and decreased water supply due to growth. The loss of greenspaces and natural areas was particularly concerning, with some respondents expressing a desire for more hiking trails and safe cycling routes that connect all of Toquerville as a city. Additionally, respondents valued the preservation of the night sky and are concerned about the lack of enforcement of lighting codes, which they believe has diminished the starry nights.

Improving Wellbeing in Toquerville

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Toquerville. Respondents emphasized the importance of growth control and responsible development, expressing concerns about the impact of rapid expansion on the city’s natural beauty, water supply, and community character. Many suggested slowing down development to ensure sufficient resources for existing residents, particularly affordable housing, while also preserving greenspaces and recreational areas. The need for improved transportation infrastructure was also highlighted, including better traffic flow, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, and increased access to public transportation.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Toquerville. Respondent comments highlighted a desire to preserve Toquerville’s small-town character and rural feel, with concerns about over-development and a fear of losing the community’s sense of place. Many also emphasized the importance of responsible growth, careful planning, and community involvement in shaping the town’s future. Some noted the need for improved infrastructure, such as traffic management and public facilities, while others expressed appreciation for Toquerville’s natural beauty and sense of camaraderie among residents.

On This Page