Nibley 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

Nibley 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 Nibley 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 March of 2022, Nibley City advertised the survey via flyers in the city newsletter, social media, and email and text lists of both city residents and committee members. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 457 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 83.2% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Nibley survey had 305 responses and the 2020 Nibley survey had 62 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Nibley was estimated at 4,095, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 457 survey responses in 2022 represent 11.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.32%.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Nibley were above average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Nibley increased between 2021 and 2022. 

Domain ratings and importance varied greatly by demographic characteristics with gender, education, religion, and income playing key roles.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

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

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

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

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Lower Quality)

  • Physical Health

Pavilions and playgrounds, nature parks, trail development, and the library were important to Nibley residents. In terms of amenity development, support was highest for trail development (58%), pavilions and playgrounds (56%), nature parks (56%). Availability aligned with the hours of city services and programs in Nibley for 84% of respondents.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development was too fast. 

Top concerns for the future of Nibley were:

  • Water Supply (83% Moderate or Major Concerns)
  • Affordable Housing (77% Moderate or Major Concerns)
  • Air Quality (76% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Roads and Transportation (73% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Nibley?
Positive social climate, community connection, open space, peace and quiet, and the small, rural feel of the town.

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 Nibley City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Air Quality. 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 Nibley 99.1%
Part Time Residents of Nibley 0.9%
Length of Residency — Range 0- 58 years
Length of Residency — Average 11.2 years
Length of Residency — Median 7 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 40.48%

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 Nibley. People who are age 40-49, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, and those with household incomes between $100,000 and $149,999 were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those who are Hispanic/Latino 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 Nibley

Demographic Characteristics Nibley Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
305 Respondents		 Online 2021
62 Respondents		 Online 2022
457 Respondents
Age 18-29 9.6% 7.6% 6.9% 23.4%
Age 30-39 44.2% 35.3% 28.8% 27.7%
Age 40-49 25.0% 32.8% 33.0% 22.0%
Age 50-59 7.7% 14.3% 13.2% 13.6%
Age 60-69 9.6% 7.1% 12.1% 9.3%
Age 70 or over 3.8% 2.9% 6.1% 4.0%
Adult Female 84.6% 73.9% 60.7% 52.0%
Adult Male 15.4% 25.6% 39.0% 48.0%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 0.3% NA
No college degree 32.7% 35.4% 36.1% 63.0%
College degree (4-year) 67.3% 64.6% 63.9% 37.0%
Median household income NA NA NA $90,650
Income under $25,000 1.9% 2.6% 1.1% 4.2%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 13.5% 10.8% 7.7% 13.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 28.8% 25.9% 15.0% 21.7%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 40.4% 28.0% 28.4% 24.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 15.4% 21.6% 33.3% 22.2%
Income $150,000 or over 0.0% 11.2% 14.5% 13.8%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 90.4% 84.6% 75.5% NA
Other religion 5.8% 6.8% 9.0% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 3.8% 8.5% 15.5% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 3.0% 3.2% 13.9%
White 98.0% 97.8% 95.6% 87.5%
Nonwhite 2.0% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 2.2% 4.4% 12.5%
Married 88.5% 91.1% 90.9% 65.1%
Children under 18 in household 73.1% 74.7% 67.0% 64.5%
Employed 67.3% 66.8% 69.7% 73.3%
Out of work and looking for work 0.0% 1.7% 0.5% 0.5%
Other 32.7% 31.5% 29.8% 26.2%
Own home/Owner occupied NA 96.2% 98.1% 90.1%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other NA 3.8% 1.9% 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 were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Nibley was 4.20 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 3.87 with 71% 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: 0% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 13% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 36% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Nibley? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 50% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 22% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Nibley over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score has increased each year. The community wellbeing score declined between 202 and 2021, but increased between 2021 and 2022. 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 Nibley. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.08, 2020 Community Wellbeing: 3.97, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.16, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.80, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.20, 2022 community wellbeing: 3.87

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Nibley as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the Rapid Growth cluster, Nibley fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Nibley was only statistically significantly higher than Herriman in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not statistically different from any other cities in the cluster. In terms of overall community wellbeing, Nibley was significantly higher than Herriman, Saratoga Springs, and Lehi, but significantly lower than Highland. 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 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 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 Nibley were Safety and Security (89%), Living Standards (87%), and Education (85%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (97%), Mental Health (97%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (92%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Safety and Security - 11% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 89% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 66% 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 - 15% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 85% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 36% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 64% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 44% rated as good or excellent.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Nibley. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 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 - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 29% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 71% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 47% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 53% rated as important or very important.

Wellbeing Matrix for Nibley

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Nibley. Safety and Security, Mental Health, Living Standards, and Education were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Physical Health fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings. Both Local Environmental Quality and Leisure Time approached this zone. 

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, Education, and Mental Health. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities, Leisure Time, Local Environmental Quality, Connection with Nature, and Social Connections. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Nibley

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Nibley residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time. There was considerable rebound in a number of domains in the last year. 

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Nibley, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 4.2, 2021- 4.05, 2022- 4.2; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 4.2, 2021- 4.1, 2022- 4.25; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.8, Category: Education- 2020- 4.15, 2021- 3.75, 2022- 4.15; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.7, 2021- 3.45, 2022 3.8; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.7, 2022- 4.0; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.6, 2022- 3.7; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.8, Category: Social Connections- 2020- 3.9, 2021- 3.25; 2022- 3.7, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 3.45, 2021- 2.7, 2022- 3.3.

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 Nibley 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 Nibley

  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     +   +  
Wellbeing in Nibley           +
Connection with Nature         +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities        + 
vs Other 		    
Education      + 
  + 
vs Other 		 +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Leisure Time         +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Living Standards   +
     +  
Local Environmental Quality  + 
vs 18-39		          
Mental Health  + 
    + 
      
Physical Health       +      
Safety & Security         +  
Social Connections       +
 +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature   + 
     +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities  + 
vs 18-39		  + 
   - 
vs A/A/NRP		 +
vs Under $75,000		  
Education   +  +      
Leisure Time         +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health + 
vs 40-59		 + 

 + 
      
Physical Health  + 
  + 
  +
   +
vs $75,000-
$99,999		  
Safety and Security            
Social Connections   +
     +
vs Under $75,000-
$99,999		   
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection 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 3.30. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.12.

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: 3% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 38% of respondents; 4: 38% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 7% 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: 6% of respondents; 2: 18% of respondents; 3: 40% of respondents; 4: 31% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 5% of respondents

Latter-day Saints reported higher levels of community connection than those from other religions or those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, and higher perceptions of local action than those who indicated Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference. Respondents who are female reported higher levels of community connection than those who are male or gender non-conforming or non-binary. 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 Nibley take action?       +
vs A/A/NP 		    
Do you feel connected to your community?

+     +     

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

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Nibley. Of the 6 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 54 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 80% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 203 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 66% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 140 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 54% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% 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 was in the upper half on perceived community action and lower half on 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. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (85%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by gardening (83%) and recreating in parks in the city (83%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Nibley. 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. 85% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 46% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 83% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 83% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 61% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 59% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 54% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Nibley respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands or waters, participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to overall personal wellbeing. 

Participating in city recreation programs, recreating in city parks, and enjoying wildlife and birds in yard or neighborhood were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing and 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 trails 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 Nibley Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 3% indicated neither, 97% 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, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 9% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 48% indicated neither, 50% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 3% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 7% indicated neither, 90% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 87% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 46% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 15% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 42% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 39% indicated neither, 19% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 55% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 37% indicated neither, 8% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 45% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 12% 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 (82%). On the pace of economic development, 49% indicated it was too fast, 29% just right, and 12% 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; 13% of respondents rated just right; 82% 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 – 12% of respondents rated too slow; 29% of respondents rated just right; 49% of respondents rated too fast; 10% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Nibley have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast (fron 60% to 82%), with a near mirror-image decline in those who felt that population growth is just right (from 32% to 13%). On the current pace of economic development, there was a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating it is too fast (from 24% to 47% and 49%). 

Type: Line Title: Nibley Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 0% rated too slow, 32% rated just right, 60% rated too fast 2021: 1% rated too slow, 20% rated just right, 74% rated too fast 2022: 1% rated too slow, 13% rated just right, 82% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Nibley Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 24% rated too slow, 8% rated just right, 23% rated too fast 2021: 12% rated too slow, 8% rated just right, 47% rated too fast 2022: 22% rated too slow, 5% rated just right, 49% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Nibley 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 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. Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Air Quality were the top three concerns with over 75% 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: Water Supply- 17% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 83% 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: Affordable Housing- 23% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 77% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse- 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality- 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 48 respondents who filled in the “other” category. Responses identical to the categories above are not included in the table. 

Table 5

Other Concerns Mentioned
Traffic, road safety (7) Ziplines
Overpopulation, overcrowding (5) Fitness gym
High density housing (4) Enough sports fields
Open space, green space, losing farmland (3) Elongated fishing pond and sledding hills
Crowding in schools (3) Large swing sets
Poor upkeep of parks (2) Recreation for seniors
Sabbath observance in businesses (2) Grocery store
Overdevelopment (2) Trails
Taxes Racism
Road strip safety when it rains Politics
Dogs off leash Beef plant smell
Secondary water Canal system changing to pipe
Bigger lots for homes Garbage collection 

Nibley Amenities, Services and Programs

Nibley City chose to add additional questions to the 2022 survey related to amenities, services, and programs offered by the city. When asked how important a set of amenities were to household wellbeing, the most important were pavilions and playgrounds, nature parks, trail development, and the library. Athletic fields and courts, indoor recreation space, and a seasonal ice rink/splash pad were also notably important.

Type: Likert Title: Importance of Amenities in Nibley Subtitle: How important are the following amenities to the wellbeing of your household? Data: Category: Pavilions and Playgrounds 4% rated not important, 96% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Nature Parks 7% rated not important, 93% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Trail Development 8% rated not important, 92% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Library 14% rated not important, 86% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Athletic Fields and Courts (outdoor) 19% rated not important, 81% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Indoor Recreation Space: 20% rated not important, 80% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Seasonal Ice Rink/Splash Pad 21% rated not important, 79% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Bike Park 29% rated not important, 71% rated somewhat or very important. Category: Performing Arts Stage 22% rated not important, 67% rated somewhat or very important. Category: City-Owned Morgan Farm 34% rated not important, 66% rated somewhat or very important.

When asked about support or opposition to the above amenities if it meant a modest increase in property taxes, support was highest for trail development (58%), pavilions and playgrounds (56%), nature parks (56%), library (49%), and seasonal ice rink/splash pad (46%).

Type: Likert. Title: Attitudes Toward Tax Increases for Amenities in Nibley. Subtitle: Please indicate your level of support or opposition to the following if it meant a modest increase in property taxes. Data: Category: Pavilions and Playgrounds 10% oppose 34% neutral 56% support. Category: Trail Development 13% oppose 29% neutral 58% support. Category: Nature Parks 14% oppose 30% neutral 56% support. Category: Library 23% oppose 29% neutral 49% support. Category: Seasonal Ice Rink/ Splash Pad 25% oppose 30% neutral 46% support. Category: Indoor Recreation Space 24% oppose 35% neutral 41% support. Category: Athletic Fields and Courts (outdoor) 27% oppose 41% neutral 32% support. Category: Bike Park 31% oppose 40% neutral 28% support. Category: City-Owned Morgan Farm 30% oppose 45% neutral 25% support. Category: Performing Arts Stage 37% oppose 49% neutral 14% support.

Availability aligns with the hours of city services and programs in Nibley for 84% of respondents.

Comments about hours of city services and programs and any additional comments about amenities or services included the following themes:

  • City service hours should go later in the day and on weekends
  • Desires for more city events and events that occur later in the day 
  • A need for infrastructure improvements and more economic opportunities
  • Too much growth and development 

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Nibley and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, residents of Nibley highly valued the social climate in Nibley, often commenting on their neighbors and sense of community as well as the small, rural feel of the town. Open space and peace and quiet were also valued in Nibley. In the additional comments section many residents brought up concerns about growth and development. Recreation was also commented on, with many residents wanting more recreation opportunities, including a splash pad and skate park. Transportation was also a concern, many worried about the safety of roads.       

On This Page