By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021


Nibley Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Nibley 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 Nibley 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, Nibley City advertised the survey via monthly newsletter, email/texts to residents, social media, flyers, communication to public entities, and website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 305 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 78% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 62 responses. The 2020 Nibley Wellbeing Survey report is available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Nibley was estimated at 3,934 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 305 survey responses represent 7.8% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.39%.

Contact Information: Courtney Flint, courtney.flint@usu.edu, 435-797-8635
Acknowledgements: Utah League of Cities and Towns, Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Caitlyn Rogers, Madison Fjeldsted, Avery Sadowski.

Key Findings in Nibley

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Nibley were above average among 29 study cities. Gender and age were particularly influential regarding wellbeing ratings.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Physical 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 and was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints. Wellbeing in Nibley declined in the last year for 46% of respondents. Cultural opportunities were more likely to decline for female respondents and those with a college degree. Social connections were more likely to decline for those age 60+.

More than two-thirds of respondents indicated that they had experienced feeling depressed, lonely, or anxious more often than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Extractive Industry was seen to have particularly negative influences on wellbeing, while Natural Landscapes like mountains, rivers, and trails were overwhelmingly positive.

Trails, athletic fields, and indoor recreation space are important to Nibley residents.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth was too fast, but they were more divided on the Pace of Economic Development.

Top concerns for the future of Nibley were:

  • Roads and Transportation (66% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Air Quality (66% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (64% Moderate or Major Concerns)

What do people value most about Nibley? 
Small town feel, farmland and open space, good location, good parks, and feeling safe.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Nibley 98.0%
Part Time Residents of Nibley 2.0%
Length of Residency - Range 0.5-54 years
Length of Residency - Average 11 years
Length of Residency - Median 9 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 35.5%

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 Nibley. People who are female, have at least a 4-year college degree, are married, own their home, and have children in household were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 are 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 Nibley

Demographic Characteristics Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2020 (N=62) 2021 (N=305)
Age 18-29 9.6% 7.6% 23.4%
Age 30-39 44.2% 35.3% 27.7%
Age 40-49 25.0% 32.8% 22.0%
Age 50-59 7.7% 14.3% 13.6%
Age 60-69 9.6% 7.1% 9.3%
Age 70 or over 3.8% 2.9% 4.0%
Adult female 84.6% 73.9% 52.0%
Adult male 15.4% 25.6% 48.0%
No college degree 32.7% 35.4% 63.0%
College degree (4-year) 67.3% 64.6% 37.0%
Median household income NA NA $90,650
Income under $25,000 1.9% 2.6% 4.2%
Income $25,000-$49,999 13.5% 10.8% 13.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 28.8% 25.9% 21.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 40.4% 28.0% 24.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 15.4% 21.6% 22.2%
Income $150,000 or over 0% 11.2% 13.8%
Latter-day Saint 90.4% 84.6% NA
Other religion 5.8% 6.8% NA
No religious preference 3.8% 8.5% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 3.0% 13.9%
White 98.0% 97.8% 87.5%
Nonwhite 2.0% (includes Hispanic/Latino) 2.2% 12.5%
Married 88.5% 91.1% 65.1%
Children under 18 in household 73.1% 74.7% 64.5%
Employed (combined) 67.3% 66.8% 73.3%
Out of work and looking for work 0% 1.7% 0.5%
Other 32.7% 31.5% 26.2%
Own home/owner occupied NA 96.2% 90.1%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 3.8% 9.9%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Nibley

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Nibley. These wellbeing indicators both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Nibley was 4.16, with 85% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Nibley was 3.80 with 69% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 12% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 35% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Nibley? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 4% of respondents; 3: 24% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 19% of respondents

The graph below compares 2020 and 2021 survey data for personal wellbeing score and community wellbeing. The number of respondents differed between years and individuals are not tracked from year to year. Personal wellbeing increased from 4.08 to 4.16 while wellbeing in Nibley declined from 3.97 to 3.80 during this time.

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing from 2020-2021 in Nibley. Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1= very poor to 5= excellent. Data – Community wellbeing in 2020: 3.97; Community wellbeing in 2021: 3.80; Personal Wellbeing in 2020: 4.08; Personal Wellbeing in 2021: 4.16.

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 Nibley declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Nibley. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 5%; Declined slightly: 34%; No change: 34%; Improved slightly: 21%; Improved Substantially: 6%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Nibley. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing changed in Nibley in the last year? Declined Substantially- 6%, Declined Slightly- 40%, No Change- 44%, Improved Slightly- 8%, Improved Substantially- 2%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Nibley as a Rapid Growth City. Within this cluster of cities, Nibley falls above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Nibley is only statistically significantly different from Herriman and Ephraim in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but it is significantly higher than Lehi, Santaquin, Nephi, Ephraim, and Herriman, and significantly lower than 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; Ephriam: 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; Ephriam: 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 Nibley

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 two highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Nibley were Safety and Security and Living Standards. The two most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security and Mental Health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Nibley. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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 - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality – 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% 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: Education - 27% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 73% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 29% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 51% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 49% rated as important or very important.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Bountiful. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: 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: Leisure Time - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 33% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 42% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 58% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Nibley

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Nibley. Safety and Security, Living Standards, and Mental Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Physical Health fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that it was of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. 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).

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, Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Education, Connection with Nature, and Local Environmental Quality. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections, Leisure Time, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health.

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. No change was reported by most Nibley respondents for Local Environmental Quality, Safety and Security, Living Standards, Education, and Connection to Nature. Improvements were reported in Leisure Time for 24% of respondents and Connection to Nature for 20% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's affect on wellbeing domains in Nibley. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 66% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 31% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 62% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 38% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 1% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 44% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 51% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health- 32% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 14% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 31% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 45% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 24% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 22% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 72% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 19% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 60% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 20% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 15% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 82% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 14% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 77% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 11% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 83% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 5% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19;

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

  • Overall personal wellbeing was less likely to decline for Latter-day Saints than those indicating Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference.

  • Connection with nature was more likely to decline for Latter-day Saints than those indicating Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference.

  • Cultural opportunities were more likely to decline for female respondents and those with a college degree.

  • Local environmental quality was more likely to decline for male respondents.

  • Safety and security were more likely to decline for male respondents and those living in Nibley longer than 5 years.

  • Social connections were more likely to decline for those age 60+.


The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2020 and 2021 by Nibley residents. The change in scores reflect the perceptions of change described above. Note that the number of survey participants increased greatly in 2021 and no individuals were tracked from year to year.
Type: Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Nibley. Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data – Category: Safety and Security- 4.15 in 2020, 4.1 in 2021; Category: Living Standards- 4.2 in 2020, 4.05 in 2021; Category: Education 4.15 in 2020, 3.75 in 2021; Category: Mental Health- 3.75 in 2020, 3.7 in 2020; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 3.75 in 2020, 3.6 in 2021; Category: Connection with Nature- 3.75 in 2020, 3.6 in 2021; Category: Leisure Time- 3.8 in 2020, 3.5 in 2021; Category: Physical Health- 3.7 in 2020, 3.45 in 2021; Category: Social Connections- 3.9 in 2020, 3.25 in 2021; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 3.45 in 2020, 2.7 in 2021.

Emotional Impacts from COVID-19

Nibley City asked about emotional issues and COVID-19. While many did not experience negative emotions or a decline in positive emotions, there were clearly people in Nibley who felt an emotional impact from the COVID-19 pandemic and its related challenges.

Likert Graph. Title: Since the COVID-19 Pandemic, how would you describe your general mental state related to the following feelings? Data- Category: Feeling content or untroubled- 29% of respondents rated less often than before the COVID-19 pandemic, 61% of respondents rated about the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 11% of respondents rated more often than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Category: Feeling depressed- 10% of respondents rated less often than before the COVID-19 pandemic, 54% of respondents rated about the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 36% of respondents rated more often than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Category: Feeling lonely- 8% of respondents rated less often than before the COVID-19 pandemic, 52% of respondents rated about the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 46% of respondents rated more often than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Category: Feeling anxious- 8% of respondents rated less often than before the COVID-19 pandemic, 46% of respondents rated about the same as before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 46% of respondents rated more often than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 Nibley respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Religion had an influence on the rating of wellbeing, but not on the importance of wellbeing domains. 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 Nibley

  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 A/A/NRP  +  
Wellbeing in Nibley +
vs 40-59		   +      
Connection to Nature +     + vs A/A/NRP  +
 
Cultural Opportunities   –        
Education   + + – vs Other  +
Over $100,000 >
$50,000-$74,999		  
Leisure Time            
Living Standards +
vs 40-59		 + +   +
Over $100,000>Under $50,000		  
Local Environmental Quality   + +      
Mental Health +
vs 40-59		     + vs A/A/NRP     
Physical Health       + vs A/A/NRP 
 +  
Safety & Security     + – vs Other    
Social Connections       + vs A/A/NRP    –
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature   –   – vs Other  +
+
Cultural Opportunities           –
Education     +   +  
Leisure Time   –     +  
Living Standards         +  
Local Environmental Quality         +  
Mental Health         +  
Physical Health +
vs 18-39		       + +
Safety and Security         +
 
Social Connections   +         
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Nibley

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection 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 3.39. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.02.

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: 6% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 31% of respondents; 4: 37% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 14% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Nibley. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Nibley as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 21% of respondents; 3: 37% of respondents; 4: 24% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and perceptions that people in Nibley take action than those indicating they were Agnostic or Atheist or had no religious preference. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Color indicates 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 Nibley take action?       + vs A/A/NRP    
Do you feel connected to your community?       + 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. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < .05).

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Nibley. Of the 9 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 30 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 129 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 68% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 85 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 56% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. Nibley is in the top 10 on perceived community action and in the mid-range 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 Nibley was 2.70. Church group activities (76%) was the most common activities for respondents.
Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Nibley. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? 76% of respondents indicated yes to church group activites. 44% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 42% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 38% of respondents indicated yes to a school group activity. 33% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 32% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 10% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Nibley Recreation Questions

Nibley City asked about 2 additional activities:

  • 2% participated in a Nibley City recreation program or event
  • 6% participated in outdoor recreation

Respondents were also asked about the importance of various recreation opportunities and support/opposition if they meant a modest increase in property taxes. Access to trails was of the highest importance and highest level of support if it meant a modest increase in property tax.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Considering the future of Nibley, how important is it to have access to…? Data – Category: Trails- 3% of respondents rated not at all important, while 97% of respondents rated slightly, moderately, or very important; Category: Athletic Fields- 13% of respondents rated not at all important, while 87% of respondents rated slightly, moderately, or very important; Category: Indoor Recreation Space- 14% of respondents rated not at all important, while 86% of respondents rated slightly, moderately, or very important.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Please indicate your level of support or opposition to the following if it meant a modest increase in property taxes. Data – Category: Developing trails- 13% of responses rated strongly oppose or oppose, 15% of respondents rated neither oppose nor support, 72% of respondents rated support or strongly support. Category: Building a recreation center- 23% of responses rated strongly oppose or oppose, 18% of respondents rated neither oppose nor support, 59% of respondents rated support or strongly support. Category: Creating more athletic fields- 35% of responses rated strongly oppose or oppose, 29% of respondents rated neither oppose nor support, 36% of respondents rated support or strongly support.

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 and more negative.

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 - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 97% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 89% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 83% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 47% indicated neither, 52% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 46% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 16% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 44% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 42% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 48% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 44% indicated neither, 7% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 58% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 2% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Nibley survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (74%), but they were more evenly distributed on the pace of economic development, with 47% indicating too fast, 34% indicating just right, and 10% indicating too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Nibley? Data – 1% of respondents rated too slow; 20% of respondents rated just right; 74% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Nibley? Data – 10% of respondents rated too slow; 34% of respondents rated just right; 47% of respondents rated too fast; 9% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Nibley 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 Nibley

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Nibley. Roads and Transportation, Air Quality, and Water Supply were the top three concerns with about two-thirds or more of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Nibley. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Nibley, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – 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: Air Quality- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 54% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 46% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 66% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 34% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 69% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 31% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 72% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 28% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 48 respondents who filled in the “other” category. High-density housing and overdevelopment were the most common additional concerns.

Other Concerns Mentioned
Number of Mentions
Other Concerns Mentioned
Number of Mentions

High density housing

12

Overdevelopment, Losing farmland

7

Activities for youth and families

4

Outdoor and indoor recreation options

4

Traffic and speeding

4

Schools and overcrowding

3

Elected people listening, leadership

2

Loss of open space

2

“Ignorant and passive citizens”, apathy

2

Political divisions

1

Logan City affecting city boundaries

1

Sewer payment

1

Infrastructure

1

Diesel water

1

Anti-racism & LGBT safety

1

Sustainability

1

Local business

1

EMT, accessibility

1

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Nibley 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 Nibley”


Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Nibley. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data – Category: Social Climate- 132 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include small town feel, connected, friendly, family-friendly; Category: Natural Resources- 61 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include farmland and open space, nature, environmental quality; Category: City Character- 52 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include good location, quiet and peaceful, well-maintained city, good quality of life; Category: Activities- 51 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include good parks, abundant cultural Opportunities, abundant recreation, good trails, youth activities; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 49 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include feels safe and low crime, good housing, good schools, other.

On This Page