By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Nephi Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Nephi City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project and has been involved since 2020. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 Nephi survey with initial information on changes since 2020 and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, Nephi City advertised the survey via utility bill newsletter, social media, Library and City Hall flyers, City Council meeting, and local newspaper coverage. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 144 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 87% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 275 responses. The 2020 Nephi Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.

  • The adult population of Nephi was estimated at 4,030 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 144 survey responses in 2021 represent 3.6% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 8.02%. 

Key Findings in Nephi

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Nephi were average among 29 study cities. Religion was an influential factor in wellbeing ratings with Latter-day Saints having higher wellbeing scores. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Local Environmental Quality
  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards
  • Connection to Nature

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 39% of respondents. Community wellbeing in Nephi declined in the last year for 46% of respondents and was more likely to decline for those living in Nephi longer than 5 years. 

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth in Nephi was too fast. Respondents were more divided about the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Nephi were:

  • Opportunities for Youth (80% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (77% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Recreation Opportunities (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (72% Moderate or Major Concern)

50% of respondents indicated that it is not likely that they could find new, affordable housing in Nephi in the next 5 years if desired or necessary. The high cost of housing and land, rapid growth, and the need for more affordable housing were common themes in open comments.

What do people value most about Nephi? 
Small town feel, access to nature, good location, abundant recreation, and feelings of safety.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Nephi 98.6%
Part Time Residents of Nephi 1.4%
Length of Residency - Range 0.25-72 years
Length of Residency - Average 24 years
Length of Residency - Median 20 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 19.7%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of Nephi. People who have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, or own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-39 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics

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

Demographic Characteristics Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2020 (N=275) 2021 (N=144)
Age 18-29 18.2% 9.5% 24.2%
Age 30-39 26.5% 27.8% 18.7%
Age 40-49 20.2% 19.0% 20.7%
Age 50-59 16.6% 20.6% 12.7%
Age 60-69 10.5% 11.1% 12.8%
Age 70 or over 8.1% 11.9% 10.9%
Adult female 64.5% 57.6% 50.0%
Adult male 35.5% 42.4% 50.0%
No college degree 57.7% 54.8% 78.5%
College degree (4-year) 42.3% 45.2% 21.5%
Median household income NA NA $69,118
Income under $25,000 5.8% 4.8% 11.0%
Income $25,000-$49,999 21.0% 15.2% 27.4%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 30.9% 27.2% 16.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 18.1% 23.2% 16.6%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.0% 21.6% 19.3%
Income $150,000 or over 8.2% 8.0% 9.0%
Latter-day Saint 76.4% 82.1% NA
Other religion 6.1% 8.1% NA
No religious preference 17.5% 9.8% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 4.8% 6.7%
White 93.8% 98.4% 90.5%
Nonwhite 6.2% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 1.6% 9.5%
Married 85.4% 87.3% 57.9%
Children under 18 in household 57.1% 50.0% 43.7%
Employed (combined) 72.8% 66.7% 64.4%
Out of work and looking for work 0.4% 2.4% 1.9%
Other 26.8% 30.9% 33.7%
Own home/owner occupied NA 88.1% 72.8%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 11.9% 27.2%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Nephi

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Nephi. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Nephi was 4.05, with 79% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Nephi was 3.58 with 59% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Nephi Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Nephi Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Nephi? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 13% of respondents; 3: 26% of respondents; 4: 44% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 15% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from Nephi, the average personal wellbeing score increased from 3.98 to 4.05 and the community wellbeing score declined from 3.63 to 3.58. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing From 2020-2021 in Moab. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 3.98, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.63, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.05, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.58

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 39% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 46% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Nephi declined as well

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Nephi. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 6%; Declined slightly: 33%; No change: 41%; Improved slightly: 17%; Improved Substantially: 3%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Nephi. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Nephi changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 6%; Declined slightly: 40%; No change: 47%; Improved slightly: 6%; Improved Substantially: 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

We have included Nephi in the Rapid Growth cluster of Utah cities. Within this cluster of cities, Nephi falls just above average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and just below average in terms of average community wellbeing score. Nephi is not statistically significantly different from the other cities in the cluster in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it is significantly higher significantly higher than Herriman and lower than Spanish Fork, North Logan, Vineyard, and Hyde Park on overall community wellbeing.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.22; Sandy: Average Score 4.13; Bountiful: Average Score 4.06; South Ogden: Average Score 4.05; Layton: Average Score 3.98; Logan: Average Score 3.81; Tooele: Average Score 3.79. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.18; Vineyard: Average Score 4.17; Nibley: Average Score 4.16; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Hurricane: Average Score 4.08; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.06; Nephi: Average Score 4.05; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.03; Santaquin: Average Score 4.00; Lehi: Average Score 3.98; Ephraim: Average Score 3.86; Herriman: Average Score 3.86. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.07; Wellington: Average Score 4.02; La Verkin: Average Score 3.98; Blanding: Average Score 3.88; Moab: Average Score 3.82; East Carbon: Average Score 3.82; Price: Average Score 3.79, Delta: Average Score: 3.78; Vernal: Average Score 3.66.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Bountiful: Average Score 3.96; Draper: Average Score 3.89; Sandy: Average Score 3.80; Layton: Average Score 3.72; South Ogden: Average Score 3.68; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Tooele: Average Score 3.28. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.06; Vineyard: Average Score 3.95; North Logan: Average Score 3.91; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.87; Nibley: Average Score 3.80; Hurricane: Average Score 3.75; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.66; Lehi: Average Score 3.60; Santaquin: Average Score 3.59; Nephi: Average Score 3.58; Ephraim: Average Score 3.57; Herriman: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 3.88; Helper: Average Score 3.73; La Verkin: Average Score 3.62; Wellington: Average Score 3.61; Delta: Average Score 3.51; Blanding: Average Score 3.48; Vernal: Average Score 3.27; Price: Average Score 3.17, Moab: Average Score: 3.13; East Carbon: Average Score 2.98.

Wellbeing Domains in Nephi

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing well in each area. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Nephi were Local Environmental Quality, Safety and Security and Living Standards. The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security, Living Standards, Physical Health, and Mental Health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Nephi Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards – 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 47% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 53% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 76% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 24% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Nephi. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 8% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 92% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time – 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% 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% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 22% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 46% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 54% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Nephi

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Nephi. Living Standards and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No domains fell into the red quadrant of higher-than-average importance, but lower than average rating). However, Physical Health and Mental Health approach this quadrant as their importance score was above average, but ratings are near the overall average rating. Please note that all domains except for Cultural Opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Nephi Wellbeing Matrix

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Connection to Nature for 13% of respondents and Leisure Time for 11% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Nephi. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 77% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 22% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 59% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 41% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 54% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 43% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 33% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 56% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 11% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 37% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 59% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 24% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 63% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 13% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 42% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 58% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 0% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 29% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 68% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 3% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 19% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 79% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 19% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 77% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

The following relationships were found in Nephi between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Community wellbeing was more likely to decline for those living in Nephi longer than 5 years.

  • Living Standards were less likely to decline for those age 60+, female respondents, and those with higher incomes.

  • Mental Health was less likely to decline for those indicating their religion as Latter-day Saint than those indicating religion as Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference and less likely to decline for those age 60+ (versus those age 18-39).

  • Physical Health was less likely to decline for those age 60+.


The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Nephi residents. The domains appear quite stable over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Nephi, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.85, 2021- 3.9; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.95, 2021- 3.9; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.85, 2021- 4.85, Category: Education- 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.55; Category: Physical Health 2020- 3.55, 2021 3.6; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.65; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.85, 2021- 3.95; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.4, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.3; 2021- 3.3, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.75, 2021- 2.65.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among Nephi respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < .0.1). The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Colors indicate strongest relationships (p < .05).

Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Nephi

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +
vs 18-39		 +

   + vs Other  +
Over $100,000 > Under $50,000		  
Wellbeing in Nephi +
vs 18-39		   + + vs A/A/NRP    
Connection to Nature +
       +  
Cultural Opportunities +
vs 40-49		 + + +     
Education +
vs 40-49		   + + vs Other     
Leisure Time +
 +     +  
Living Standards +

 +

   + vs Other  +
+
Local Environmental Quality       + vs A/A/NRP +
Over $100,000 >
Under $50,000		  
Mental Health +
vs 18-39		     +

 +
Over $100,000 >
Under $50,000		  
Physical Health +
          
Safety & Security            
Social Connections +
vs 18-39		     + vs A/A/NRP +
Over $100,000>
Under $50,000		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature            
Cultural Opportunities         –
  
Education –          
Leisure Time +
vs 40-49		       +
Over $100,000 <
$50,000-$75,000		  
Living Standards +

 +     +
Over $100,000 <
$50,000-$75,000		  
Local Environmental Quality +
vs 40-49		 +        
Mental Health +
vs 40-49		 +
     +
  
Physical Health +
vs 40-49		          
Safety and Security       + vs A/A/NRP

 
Social Connections   +       +
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Nephi

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection in Nephi. 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 Nephi, the average score was 3.27. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.30.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Nephi. Subtitle: In Nephi, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 7% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 35% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Nephi. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Nephi as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 31% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% of respondents

Those who indicated there religion as Latter-day Saint reported higher perceptions that people in Nephi take action and higher levels of community connection than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference. Age, gender, and income also had weakly positive relationships with these variables. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Colors indicate strongest relationships (p< .05).

Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Nephi take action?   +   +
vs A/A/NRP		    
Do you feel connected to your community? +
vs 18-39		     +
vs A/A/NRP		 +  
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

 

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

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing From 2020-2021 in Nephi. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 3.98, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.63, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.05, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.58

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. Nephi is in the mid-range on perceived community action and in the top 5 on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.
Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Nephi was 2.72. Church group activities (68%) was the most common activity for respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Nephi. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 68% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 35% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 39% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 47% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 39% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 29% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 12% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Nephi Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 95% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 6% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 13% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 86% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland – 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 35% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 36% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 57% indicated neither, 31% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 25% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 59% indicated neither, 16% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Over half of Nephi survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (58%) and 32% indicated it is just right. Respondents were more divided on economic development, with 37% indicating it is too slow, 36% indicating it is just right, and 20% indicating it is too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Nephi. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Nephi? Data – 5% of respondents rated too slow; 32% of respondents rated just right; 58% of respondents rated too fast, 5% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Nephi. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Nephi? Data – 37% of respondents rated too slow; 36% of respondents rated just right; 20% of respondents rated too fast; 6% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Nephi compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Respondent’s Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: Population Growth, How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 72% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 52% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 48% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 90% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 84% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 80% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 79% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 70% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 68% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 57% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 55% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 35% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast;City: La Verkin – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 46% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 14% of respondents rated too slow, 29% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 18% of respondents rated too slow, 17% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 15% of respondents rated too slow, 11% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 32% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 35% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Economic Growth, How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 19% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 28% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 22% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 41% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 39% of respondents rated too slow, 13% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 73% of respondents rated too fast; City: La Verkin – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 64% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 57% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 51% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 75% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 79% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 66% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in Nephi

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Nephi. Opportunities for Youth, Water Supply, and Affordable Housing were the top three concerns with 77% to 80% of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Nephi. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Nephi, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – 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: Affordable Housing- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 45% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 55% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse – 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 25 respondents who filled in the “other” category. 

Other Concerns Mentioned

Recreation opportunities (parks, indoor swimming pool, opportunities for elderly, for kids and teens) (5)

Education, enough schools (3)

Need more police (2)

Rising taxes, property taxes (2)

Big city feel (1)

City Council (1)

Clean up community, roads, and sidewalks (1)

Climate change (1)

Friendliness (1)

Housing cost (1)

Lack of progressive thinkers (1)

People (1)

Power grid (1)

Public transit (1)

Sewage (1)

Uncontrolled subdivisions (1)

Very low water pressure (1)

Water sustainability (1)

Additional Nephi Questions on Events and Housing

Nephi City Events
Respondents were asked, “Do you think city events in Nephi should be run by volunteers or by paid city staff?” Responses in 2021 were similar to those in 2020:

Volunteers      53.4% (55% in 2020)               Paid City Staff             46.6% (45% in 2020)

Housing in Nephi
Respondents were asked about the likelihood of finding new, affordable housing in Nephi in next 5 years and the type of housing they think they could afford given the current housing market. Nine number of people wrote in that they couldn’t afford any new housing in Nephi.

Bar Graph: Title: Finding New, Affordable Housing in Nephi in the Next 5 years if Desired or Necessary. Very likely- 13%, Somewhat Likely- 26%, Not likely- 50%, Unsure- 11%.

Bar Graph: Title: Percent of Respondents Thinking They Could Afford Type of Housing Given Current Housing Market in Nephi 2020-2021. Category: Singly Family House- 2020 70% or respondents, 2021 62% of respondents. Category: Townhome- 2020 6% of respondents, 2021 9% of respondents. Category: Apartment- 2020 9% of respondents, 2021 9% of respondents. Category: Mobile Home- 2020 6% of respondents, 2021 10% of respondents. Category: Other- 2020 7% of respondents, 2021 10% of respondents.

Open comments on Housing in Nephi were similar to 2020. The following themes were common in both 2020 and 2021:

  • High cost of housing and land,
  • Growing too fast
  • Need more affordable housing (rentals, apartments, townhomes, etc.)
  • Calls for bigger lots

New themes in 2021:

  • Challenge of supporting growth with local jobs, activities, food, services, etc.
  • Need for more police and concerns about crime and deterioration coming with growth
  • Parking along streets is a concern due to small lot sizes
  • Concern about road conditions, sidewalks and gutters
  • Concern about wild lands and air quality with growth

Summary of Open Comments

The survey included opportunities in the survey were provided for respondents to share their ideas about Nephi with one question on what they value most about their city and another for any additional comments on wellbeing. A summary of values is below. Analysis is ongoing regarding all additional comments and a summary will be added to the report later in 2021.

Key themes in response to “Please tell us what you value most about living in Nephi ”


Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Nephi. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 105 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Small-Town Feel, Connected, Friendly, Family- Friendly, Good Values; Category: Natural Resources- 27 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Good Environmental Quality, Farmland/Open Space, Good Water Quality, Dark Skies. City Character- 22 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Good Location, Quiet/Peaceful, Good Quality of Life. Category: Safety- 17 Mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Feels Safe, Good Police. Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 33 mentions, boxes largest to smallest Includes Abundant Recreation, Good Economy, Well-Governed, Low Traffic, Abundant Cultural Opportunities, Good Schools, Other .

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

On This Page

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Madison Fjeldsted, Jordan Hammon, and Sarah Wilson.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.