Nephi Wellbeing Survey Findings 2022

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

Nephi City is one of 33 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2022. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process.

We are grateful to all participants who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. Additionally, we are grateful to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and USU Extension for their financial support.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2022 Nephi survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

STarting in February of 2022, Nephi City advertised the survey via social media, a newsletter in utility bills, City Hall meetings, and the local newspaper. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 250 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 85.6% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Nephi survey had 144 responses and the 2020 Nephi survey had 275 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Nephi was estimated at 4,170, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 250 survey responses in 2022 represent 6.0% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 6.01%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing in Nephi was above average among the 33 study cities and Community Wellbeing was near the average. Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing increased in Nephi between 2021 and 2022. Wellbeing, domain ratings, and domain importance varied greatly by demographic characteristics with age, religion, and income playing key roles.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Mental Health
  • Connection to Nature
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Rating)

  • Education

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were higher in Nephi than many other study communities.

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:

  • Water Supply (84% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Suicide (72% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (71% 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, which is up from 50% in 2021. 45% said they felt they could afford a single-family house which is down substantially from 2021 (62%) and 2020 (70%). The majority of respondents (42%) indicated a preference for a 20,000 square foot lot (1/2 acre) single-family residential.

What do people value most about Nephi? 
Small-town feel and positive social climate, peaceful and quiet atmosphere, and feelings of safety.

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

In addition to providing partner cities with the opportunity to take part in surveys, the Utah Wellbeing Project has worked to provide curated resources for community leaders and citizens that aim to improve specific aspects of wellbeing. These Wellbeing Resources can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website, along with other useful tools and information.

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Nephi City, key wellbeing issues include: Education, Water Supply, Suicide, and Affordable Housing. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Nephi 97.6%
Part Time Residents of Nephi 2.4%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 75 years
Length of Residency — Average 22.9 years
Length of Residency — Median 18 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 22.0%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Nephi. People who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, employed, have children under 18 in the household, and own their home were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below.

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Nephi

Demographic Characteristics Nephi Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
275 Respondents		 Online 2021
144 Respondents		 Online 2022
250 Respondents
Age 18-29 18.2% 9.5% 11.2% 24.2%
Age 30-39 26.5% 27.8% 21.5% 18.7%
Age 40-49 20.2% 19.0% 26.2% 20.7%
Age 50-59 16.6% 20.6% 19.2% 12.7%
Age 60-69 10.5% 11.1% 13.6% 12.8%
Age 70 or over 8.1% 11.9% 8.4% 10.9%
Adult Female 64.5% 57.6% 60.6% 50.0%
Adult Male 35.5% 42.4% 38.5% 50.0%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 0.9% NA
No college degree 57.7% 54.8% 59.8% 78.5%
College degree (4-year) 42.3% 45.2% 40.2% 21.5%
Median household income NA NA NA $69,118
Income under $25,000 5.8% 4.8% 3.8% 11.0%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 21.0% 15.2% 12.4% 27.4%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 30.9% 27.2% 23.4% 16.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 18.1% 23.2% 19.6% 16.6%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 16.0% 21.6% 26.8% 19.3%
Income $150,000 or over 8.2% 8.0% 13.9% 9.0%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 76.4% 82.1% 76.2% NA
Other religion 6.1% 8.1% 6.2% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 17.5% 9.8% 17.6% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 4.8% 1.9% 6.7%
White 93.8% 98.4% 96.2% 90.5%
Nonwhite 6.2% (includes 
Hispanic and Latino)		 1.6% 3.8% 9.5%
Married 85.4% 87.3% 86.4% 57.9%
Children under 18 in household 57.1% 50.0% 54.2% 43.7%
Employed 72.8% 66.7% 72.4% 64.4%
Out of work and looking for work 0.4% 2.4% 0.5% 1.9%
Other 26.8% 30.9% 27.1% 33.7%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 88.1% 90.2% 72.8%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 11.9% 9.8% 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 were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Nephi was 4.11 with 82% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Nephi was 3.62 with 60% 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: 4% of respondents; 3: 14% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 34% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Nephi. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Nephi? Data - 1 Very Poor: 2% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 28% of respondents; 4: 44% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 16% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Nephi over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score has increased each year, while the community wellbeing score has remained nearly the same. 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: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Nephi. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated 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, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.11, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.62

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

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

Within the Rural city cluster, Nephi fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Nephi was statistically significantly higher than Moab and East Carbon in terms of overall personal wellbeing. In terms of community wellbeing, Nephi was statistically significantly higher than Moab, East Carbon, and Price, but lower than Helper. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.27; Millcreek: Average Score 4.24; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 4.19; Layton: Average Score 4.16; Bountiful: Average Score 4.09; Sandy: Average Score 4.07; South Jordan: Average Score 4.06; West Jordan: Average Score 4.03; Midvale: Average Score 3.94; Logan: Average Score 3.89; Tooele: Average Score 3.76. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Vineyard: Average Score 4.31; Highland: Average Score 4.28; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.25; Nibley: Average Score 4.20; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.15; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Lehi: Average Score 4.10; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.02; Santaquin: Average Score 3.98; Herriman: Average Score 3.87. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Beaver: Average Score 4.18; Helper: Average Score 4.15; Nephi: Average Score 4.11; Tremonton: Average Score 4.10; Park City: Average Score 4.04; Bluff: Average Score 3.96; Ephraim: Average Score 3.89; Delta: Average Score 3.88; Blanding: Average Score: 3.85; Price: Average Score 3.83; East Carbon: Average Score: 3.73; Moab: Average Score: 3.50. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.03; South Jordan: Average Score 4.02; Bountiful: Average Score 3.84; Sandy: Average Score 3.79; Millcreek: Average Score 3.79; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 3.72; Layton: Average Score 3.71; West Jordan: Average Score 3.55; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Midvale: Average Score 3.24; Tooele: Average Score 3.15. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Highland: Average Score 4.15; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.05; North Logan: Average Score 3.99; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.98; Nibley: Average Score 3.87; Vineyard: Average Score 3.84; Santaquin: Average Score 3.72; Lehi: Average Score 3.61; Herriman: Average Score 3.49; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Helper: Average Score 4.09; Bluff: Average Score 3.84; Beaver: Average Score 3.82; Ephraim: Average Score 3.75; Nephi: Average Score 3.62; Park City: Average Score 3.50; Delta: Average Score 3.44; Blanding: Average Score 3.44; Tremonton: Average Score: 3.32; Price: Average Score 3.15; East Carbon: Average Score: 2.98; Moab: Average Score: 2.84. 

Wellbeing Domains in 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 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 Safety and Security (77%), Mental Health (74%), and Connection with Nature (72%). The three most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (99%), Mental Health (96%), and Living Standards (96%).

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 - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 40% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 60% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 69% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 31% 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? Category: Safety and Security - 1% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 99% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% 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% 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% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 31% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 44% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 56% 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. Safety and Security, Mental Health, Living Standards, and Physical Health were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Education fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings.

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

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Nephi

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Nephi residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Nephi, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.85, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 3.85; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.95, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 4.05; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.85, 2021- 3,85, 2022- 3.9, Category: Education- 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.65; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.55, 2021- 3.6, 2022 3.8; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.65, 2021- 3.65, 2022- 3.8; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.85, 2021- 4.0, 2022- 3.7; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.4, 2021- 3.4, 2022- 3.55, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.3, 2021- 3.3; 2022- 3.5, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 2.8, 2021- 2.7, 2022- 3.0.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables for age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships among Nephi respondents as shown in the table below based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data. The +/- sign indicates whether the wellbeing score in the specific demographic group was significantly higher or lower than the reference group in each demographic variable (p<.05).

Table 3
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Nephi

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing +
vs 18-39		 +   + 
vs A/A/NP		 + 
vs Under $75,000		 + 
Wellbeing in Nephi +
vs 18-39 		     + 
vs A/A/NP		   + 
Connection with Nature +
vs 18-39		     + 
vs A/A/NP 		    
Cultural Opportunities            
Education +
     + 
vs A/A/NP 		   + 
 
Leisure Time +
vs 18-39		     + 
vs A/A/NP 		   + 
Living Standards +
 +
   + 
vs A/A/NP  		 + 
vs Under $75,000		 + 
 
Local Environmental Quality       + 
vs A/A/NP 		    
Mental Health +
     + 
vs A/A/NP 		 + 
vs Under $75,000		  
Physical Health              
Safety & Security +

   + 
 + 
vs A/A/NP 		 + 
vs Under $75,000		 + 
Social Connections +
vs 18-39		     + 
vs A/A/NP  		    
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities         - 
vs $100,000- $149,999		  
Education            
Leisure Time            
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health   + 
  
   - 
vs $100,000- $149,999 		  
Physical Health       + 
vs Other		    
Safety and Security -
vs 18-39		     + 
vs A/A/NP 		    
Social Connections   + 
         
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection 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 3.29. 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: 4% of respondents; 2: 16% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 31% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 12% 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: 6% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 13% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection and higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents with a college degree reported higher levels of community connection than those without a college degree. Respondents age 60+ reported higher levels of community connection than those age 18-39. This was based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Nephi take action?       +
vs A/A/NP 		    
Do you feel connected to your community? + 
vs 18-39		   +   +
vs A/A/NP 		    

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Nephi. Of the 11 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 82% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 18% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 29 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 79% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 109 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 62% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 78 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 37% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 63% 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. Nephi was in the upper half on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; East Carbon 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (79%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (77%) and gardening (74%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Nephi. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 79% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 77% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 60% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 68% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 74% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 54% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 44% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 48% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Nephi respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation, recreating in city parks, and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Recreating in city parks and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing. 

Participating in non-motorized recreation, recreating in city parks, enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood, gardening, and watching or reading nature-related programs or publications were positively and significantly related to community connection. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, rivers and streams, city parks, and farmland 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 - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 82% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 24% indicated neither, 75% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 10% 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: Residential Development - 41% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 35% indicated neither, 24% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 25% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 37% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 33% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 50% indicated neither, 17% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 22% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 53% indicated neither, 25% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Nephi survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was too fast (72%). On the pace of economic development respondents were more divided, with 34% indicating it was too fast, 33% too slow, and 28% just right.

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; 21% of respondents rated just right; 72% of respondents rated too fast; 2% 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 – 33% of respondents rated too slow; 28% of respondents rated just right; 34% of respondents rated too fast; 5% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Nephi have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. For both the rate population growth and the pace of economic development, the 2022 surveys showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that they are too fast, with a similar decline in those who felt they are just right or too slow in the case of economic development. 

Type: Line Title: Nephi Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 6% rated too slow, 35% rated just right, 53% rated too fast 2021: 5% rated too slow, 32% rated just right, 58% rated too fast 2022: 5% rated too slow, 21% rated just right, 72% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Nephi Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 54% rated too slow, 30% rated just right, 9% rated too fast 2021: 37% rated too slow, 36% rated just right, 20% rated too fast 2022: 33% rated too slow, 28% rated just right, 34% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Nephi compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development in 2022. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Graph 23: Population Growth Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Logan – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Draper – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 56% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 51% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek - 1% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 66% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast;City: Highland – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 82% of respondents rated too fast;City: Tremonton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 60% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 40% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast.  Graph 24: Economic Development Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town?  Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 41% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Jordan – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 34% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 22% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 49% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: Highland – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 29% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 77% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tremonton – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 45% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 31% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 30% of respondents rated too slow, 18% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 61% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 67% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in 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. Water Supply, Affordable Housing, Suicide, and Opportunities for Youth were the top three concerns with over 70% 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: Water Supply- 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 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 Quality Food- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 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 Health Care- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 53% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 47% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 67% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 33% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 29 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
High density housing (5) Businesses encroaching residential neighborhoods
Overdevelopment (4) Driving too young
Restaurants (2) Bringing water from CUWP
Indoor pool (2) Road safety
Education (2) Traffic
Farm lifestyle (2) Utilities
Politics (2) Parks for young children

Housing in Nephi

Nephi chose to add additional questions to the survey regarding housing. Below are the findings related to these questions. 

77% of respondents from Nephi owned their own home.

Nephi residents were asked, “If you were to change your housing arrangements in the next 5 years, how likely is it that you could find new housing that is affordable to you in Nephi if desired or necessary?” 62% said not likely, which is up from 50% in 2021. 


Type: Bar Title: Ability to Find New Housing Subtitle: If you were to change your housing arrangement in the next five years, how likely is it that you could find new housing that is affordable to you in Nephi if desired or necessary? 62% of respondents indicated not likely. 21% of respondents indicated somewhat likely. 7% of respondents indicated very likely. 10% of respondents indicated unsure how likely.

When asked what type of housing they could afford given the current housing market in Nephi, 45% said they felt they could afford a single-family house which is down substantially from 2021 (62%) and 2020 (70%). For other types of housing, 17% said they could afford a townhome, 16% said they could afford an apartment, 15% said they could afford a mobile home, and 12% indicated other.

Nephi residents were also asked, “What types of housing would you like to have more of in Nephi?” The majority of respondents (42%) indicated a preference for a 20,000 square foot lot (1/2 acre) single-family residential, followed by 36% indicating a 10,000 square foot lot (1/4 acre) single-family residential and 35% indicating a 8,000 square foot single-family residential. 

Type: Bar Title: Housing Preferences Subtitle: What type of housing would you like to see more of in Herriman? Check all that apply Data: 36% would like single family homes on 1/4 acre lots. 42% would like single family Homes on 1/2 acre lots or larger. 35% would like single family homes on 8,000 square foot lots. 34% would like single family Homs on 14,000 square foot lots. 17% would like townhomes or condos 16% would like apartments.

In comments about the housing situation in Nephi, the most common perspectives focused on:

  •  A lack of affordable options
  • Too much growth and development 
  • Too much high-density housing development 
  • A need to focus on infrastructure and economic opportunities as Nephi grows
  • A desire for bigger home lots and more single-family homes

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Nephi and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Nephi. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, Nephi residents highly valued the peace and quiet that is found in Nephi. People also very highly valued the social climate in Nephi, specifically that Nephi had a ‘small town feel’. Safety was also valued by many people in Nephi. The additional comments section included many comments made by residents about growth and development as well as housing, most of these comments worried about the pace of both. Recreation was also mentioned, with many residents wanting more recreation opportunities, specifically non-athletic opportunities. Some Nephi residents also made comments on the shopping available and wanting more businesses in Nephi.

On This Page