By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

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.


Nibley Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Nibley is one of 25 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Project. 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.

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. Nibley City advertised the survey via social media. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 2, 2020 to February 23, 2020.

A total of 62 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Nibley resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort. These numbers are small and likely do not reflect the perspectives of all Nibley residents. Furthermore, these numbers do not allow for multivariate analysis regarding the influence of demographics on wellbeing.

Respondent Characteristics

Nearly all of the Nibley survey respondents (98%) were full-time residents. The length of residency ranged from 0 to 28 years with an average of 7 years. Just under half of respondents (48%) lived in Nibley for more than 5 years.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. As the table shows, females, those with college degrees, and those with household incomes of $75,000-$99,999 are overrepresented in the resulting survey sample. The survey underrepresented nonwhites and Latinos and those with household incomes $150,000 and over. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents may not be fully representative of Nibley residents.

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

Demographic Characteristics Nibley
Online Survey 2020
(62 Respondents)		 American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 53.8% 51.2%
Age 40-59 32.7% 35.6%
Age 60 or Over 13.5% 13.2%
Female 84.6% 52.0%
Male 15.4% 48.0%
No college degree 32.7% 63.0%
College degree (4-year) 67.3% 37.0%
Median household income NA $90,650
Income Under $50,000 15.4% 18.1%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 28.8% 21.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 40.4% 24.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 15.4% 22.2%
Income $150,000 or over 0% 13.8%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 90.4% NA
Other religion 5.8% NA
No religious preference 3.8% NA
White (non-Latino) 98.0% 83.3%
Nonwhite or Latino 2.0% 16.7%
Children under 18 in household 73.1% 64.5%
Employed (combined) 67.3% 73.3% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work 0% 0.5% (unemployed)
Other 32.7% 26.2% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Nibley

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall wellbeing in Nibley. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score among Nibley respondents was 4.08, with 82% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for wellbeing in Nibley was 3.97.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 51% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Nibley? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 16% of respondents; 4: 61% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Nibley is just above the average of all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Nibley in the “Rapid Growth Cities” group, along with eight other cities as identified in the graph below. Although there are a handful of cities within this group with average personal wellbeing scores above and below that of Nibley, there is no statistically significant difference in the scores among these cities.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.

Wellbeing Domains in Nibley

According to national and international entities tracking wellbeing, a number of common domains make up wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, and indicated their importance to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. Based on percentage with a good or excellent rating, the top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents were living standards, safety and security, and education. The three most important wellbeing domains were safety and security, mental health, and physical health.

The small sample size precludes the ability to explore the influence of demographics on wellbeing perspectives.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Living Standards - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 53% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 47% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Nibley. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 24% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 47% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 53% rated as important or very important. 

Wellbeing Matrix for Nibley

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Nibley. Mental Health, Physical Health, and Local Environmental Quality fall into the red quadrant, indicating that they were found to be of higher than average importance, but rated lower than average. It is important to note that all domains have an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Nibley Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Education. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Social Connections. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time, Connection with Nature, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Local Environmental Quality, Mental Health, and Physical Health.

Community Action & Connections in Nibley

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Nibley. 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 Nibley, the average score was 3.52. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.55.     

The small sample size precludes the ability to explore the influence of demographics on community perspectives.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Nibley. Subtitle: In Nibley, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 43% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% of respondents.Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Nibley. Subtitle: In Nibley, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 4% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 38% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 16% of respondents.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Mountains, rivers and streams, city parks, trails, farmland, and lakes were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on respondents’ wellbeing. Forty-five percent of respondents also noted red rock as having a positive influence.

Respondents tended to feel that development and industry in the landscape had a more negative influence on their wellbeing. Over three-fifths of respondents noted that extractive industry has a negative influence on their wellbeing, while just over half noted that manufacturing industry has a negative influence. Just under half noted that commercial development has a negative influence. Well over one-third (38%) noted that residential development has a negative influence.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Nibley Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 16% indicated neither, 79% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 21% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 53% indicated neither, 45% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 38% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 16% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 48% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 11% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 52% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 61% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 0% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Nibley

The majority of survey respondents (60%) indicated that they felt the rate of population growth is too fast, while 32% said it was just right. Just under half of respondents noted that they felt the pace of economic development is just right (47%), while 23% said it was too fast and 19% said too slow. Compared to the other cities in the winter 2020 survey, Nibley is in the midrange on population growth perspectives and is more divided across response options on economic development than most other cities.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Nibley? Data - Too Slow: 0% of respondents; Just Right: 32% of respondents; Too Fast: 60% of respondents; No Opinion: 8% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Nibley? Data - Too Slow: 19% of respondents; Just Right - 47% of respondents; Too Fast - 23% of respondents; No Opinion - 11% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth in Sampled Utah Cities. Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 91% indicated too fast; Lehi - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 83% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 80% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Draper - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Tooele - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 70% indicated too fast. North Logan - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 66% indicated too fast. Moab - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 64% indicated too fast; Nibley - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 60% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nephi - 6% of respondents indicated too slow, 53% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 12% of respondents indicated too slow, 35% indicated too fast; Richfield - 14% of respondents indicated too slow, 18% indicated too fast; Delta - 31% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Helper - 22% of respondents indicated too slow, 8% indicated too fast.

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development in Sampled Utah Cities. Draper - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 44% indicated too fast; Lehi - 9% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nibley - 19% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Moab - 24% of respondents indicated too slow, 62% indicated too fast; North Logan - 29% of respondents indicated too slow, 19% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 35% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 44% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 45% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 47% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Herriman - 48% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated too slow, 15% indicated too fast; Helper - 52% of respondents indicated too slow, 2% indicated too fast; Nephi - 54% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 56% of respondents indicated too slow, 11% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 58% of respondents indicated too slow, 12% indicated too fast; Richfield - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 5% indicated too fast; Tooele - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 10% indicated too fast; Delta - 80% of respondents indicated too slow, 0% indicated too fast.

Risks and Assets for Wellbeing in Nibley

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a major or minor risk or asset to wellbeing in Nibley (see Table 2).

Table 2
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Nibley Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 77% of respondents)		 Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 23% of respondents)
Recreation Opportunities Substance Abuse
Public Safety Air Quality
Water Supply Shopping Opportunities
Opportunities for Youth Electronic Devices
Access to Public Land Affordable Housing

Respondents also wrote in other assets and risks as shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Nibley Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Youth sports                                                                           3200 South and Hwy 89 intersection (2) High density housing developments       
    Restriction dogs from Firefly Park sidewalks  

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 16 respondents (26% of the 62 that completed the survey). Some topics mentioned by those who left a comment included the rate of growth and development and high-density housing. Others mentioned how much they like the abundance of walking trails and parks. Many people like living in Nibley.

Dominant themes in comments:

  • Growth and development too fast
  • Too much high-density housing
  • Good recreation opportunities
  • Many people like the community

A Few Quotes

  • “Nibley City is a great place to live. My family and I love the events, runs, and youth sports available from the City Recreation department.”
  • “Nibley is attractive to me because it's mostly residential, but still close enough to businesses in Logan and Providence that it doesn't feel needed right in Nibley boundaries. It makes the town feel safer and more appealing.”
  • “Nibley is choosing to develop at a very fast rate, almost headstrong rate. Nibley is seeking to develop several townhome or multi- family complexes in several now open land spaces, which is a huge negative to the comfort of our community.”
  • “The many housing communities, apartment buildings and townhomes coming to Nibley (annexed to Logan) are a detriment to our community and will change the demographic of our town.”
  

On This Page