Nibley Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Nibley is one of 51 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2024. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform general planning processes. Additional analysis is underway and this report may be updated over time.

We are grateful to all those who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. We are grateful to a number of entities for funding: the Utah League of Cities and Towns, USU Extension, USU’s Institute for Land Water and Air, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, and the cities of Alpine, Cedar Hills, Draper, Millcreek, Nephi, North Salt Lake, Ogden, Orem, Pleasant Grove, Providence, Springdale, Tremonton, West Bountiful, and West Valley City.

This report describes findings from the 2024 Nibley survey and comparative information with other project cities. In April and May 2024, Nibley City advertised the survey for residents through newsletters, emails, texts, social media, City Council meetings, flyers, and through other surveys. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 319 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort.
  • The Nibley 2022 survey had 457 responses and the Nibley 2021 survey had 305 responses and the Nibley 2020 survey had 62 responses.
  • The adult population of Nibley was estimated at 4,394, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 319 survey responses in 2024 represent 7.3% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 5.28%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of Nibley 97.5%
Part Time Residents of Nibley 2.5%
Length of Residency — Range 0.1-60 years
Length of Residency — Average 11.2 years
Length of Residency — Median 8 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 39.9%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey. In the graph below, gray bars indicate differences between the American Community Survey estimates and the Utah Wellbeing Project surveys. The wider the gray bars, the larger the differences. Also note that estimates for religious affiliation, adult non-conforming or non-binary gender, disability, and chronic conditions are unavailable from the census data. There can also be a variable margin of error in the American Community Survey estimates, and caution should be used when comparing estimates. Not all respondents provided demographic information. As the graph shows, 2024 survey respondents were not fully representative of Nibley. People who are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, and are married were overrepresented while those who are age 18-29, are adult males, and do not have a college degree were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Nibley 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 24%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 26%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 34%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 32%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 13%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 11%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 6%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 3%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 12%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 7%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 12%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 24%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 33%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 39%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 17%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 17%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 51%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 70%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 49%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 0%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 71%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 62%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 2%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 2%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 27%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 36%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 60%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 28%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 40%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 72%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 9%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 4%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 91%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 96%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 64%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 92%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 62%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 71%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 6%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 21%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 13%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 14%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 82%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 6%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 12%

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 poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Nibley was 4.14 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 3.92 with 73% of respondents indicating community 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 Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 1% of respondents; 3: 13% of respondents; 4: 54% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Nibley? Data — 1 Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 23% of respondents; 4: 49% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 24% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Nibley over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score increased from 2020 to 2022, and saw a small decline from 2022 to 2024. The average community wellbeing score saw a decline from 2020 to 2021, but has increased since then. Note that the number of respondents differed between years, there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next, and the low end of the scale was "Poor" in 2024 but "Very Poor" in prior years which may account for differences in scores over time.

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 — Community Wellbeing 2020: 3.97; Community Wellbeing 2021: 3.80; Community Wellbeing 2022: 3.87; Community Wellbeing 2024: 3.92; Personal Wellbeing 2020: 4.08; Personal Wellbeing 2021: 4.16; Personal Wellbeing 2022: 4.20; Personal Wellbeing 2024: 4.14

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns clusters cities and towns into five different categories based on size and growth rates. We utilize these clusters in our analysis. Nibley is classified as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster.

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Nibley was close to the average overall personal wellbeing score and above the average overall community wellbeing score.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.81; Ogden Average Score 3.91; Layton Average Score 3.96; West Jordan Average Score 4.01; Orem Average Score 4.05; South Jordan Average Score 4.13; Sandy Average Score 4.18; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.66; Midvale Average Score 3.71; Cedar City Average Score 3.94; South Ogden Average Score 4.04; Pleasant Grove Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.08; Bountiful Average Score 4.13; Draper Average Score 4.22; West Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.29; Alpine Average Score 4.32; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.33; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.97; Saratoga Springs Average Score 4.02; Lehi Average Score 4.05; Clinton Average Score 4.07; Hyrum Average Score 4.10; Spanish Fork Average Score 4.10; Nibley Average Score 4.14; West Haven Average Score 4.17; Vineyard Average Score 4.22; Hyde Park Average Score 4.23; Wellsville Average Score 4.24; Mapleton Average Score 4.26; Providence Average Score 4.27; Ivins Average Score 4.40; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Vernal Average Score 3.60; Price Average Score 3.62; Monticello Average Score 3.71; East Carbon Average Score 3.75; Delta Average Score 3.78; Helper Average Score 3.79; Tremonton Average Score 3.81; Blanding Average Score 3.85; Nephi Average Score 3.92; Beaver Average Score 3.95; Heber Average Score 4.01; La Verkin Average Score 4.13; Bluff Average Score 4.20; Springdale Average Score 4.21; Park City Average Score 4.22; Midway Average Score 4.27; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.42

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.27; West Valley City Average Score 3.38; West Jordan Average Score 3.50; Layton Average Score 3.52; Orem Average Score 3.63; Millcreek Average Score 3.82; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.00; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.18; Midvale Average Score 3.24; Cedar City Average Score 3.42; Pleasant Grove Average Score 3.61; South Ogden Average Score 3.72; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.75; Bountiful Average Score 3.84; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.90; West Bountiful Average Score 4.00; Draper Average Score 4.03; Alpine Average Score 4.15; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.15; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.40; Vineyard Average Score 3.43; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.46; Lehi Average Score 3.50; West Haven Average Score 3.67; Hyrum Average Score 3.76; Clinton Average Score 3.79; Spanish Fork Average Score 3.80; Ivins Average Score 3.91; Providence Average Score 3.91; Nibley Average Score 3.92; Hyde Park Average Score 4.02; Mapleton Average Score 4.02; Wellsville Average Score 4.11; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Price Average Score 2.88; East Carbon Average Score 3.03; Tremonton Average Score 3.09; Monticello Average Score 3.11; Vernal Average Score 3.12; Blanding Average Score 3.31; Heber Average Score 3.42; Delta Average Score 3.43; Nephi Average Score 3.43; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Beaver Average Score 3.59; Springdale Average Score 3.68; Helper Average Score 3.71; Park City Average Score 3.85; Bluff Average Score 3.88; Midway Average Score 4.07; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.28

Wellbeing Domains in Nibley

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. Survey respondents rated twelve domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. 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 highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Nibley were Family Life (90%), Safety and Security (87%), and Living Standards (86%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (99%), Mental Health (98%), and Family Life (98%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 10% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 90% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 14% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 86% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% 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: Transportation - 35% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 65% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 37% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 63% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 59% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 41% 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? Data — 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: Family Life - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 5% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 95% rated as important or very important; Category: 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: Leisure Time -12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Education -19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Transportation -35% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -48% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 52% 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. Family Life, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Physical Health fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings.

Scatterplot. Title: Nibley Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: 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 domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Family Life, Living Standards, Mental Health, and Safety and Security; High rating, lower importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Leisure Time; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Cultural Opportunities, Education, Local Environmental Quality, Social Connections, and Transportation; 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. The number of respondents changed over time. Note that the two domains Family Life and Transportation were new categories in the 2024 survey and were not measured in previous years. Safety and Security and Living Standards were consistently highly rated across the years, while Cultural Opportunities was among the lowest.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Nibley. Subtitle: (Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent) Data — Connection with Nature 2020: 3.73; Connection with Nature 2021: 3.57; Connection with Nature 2022: 3.80; Connection with Nature 2024: 3.82; Cultural Opportunities 2020: 3.43; Cultural Opportunities 2021: 2.68; Cultural Opportunities 2022: 3.29; Cultural Opportunities 2024: 3.24; Education 2020: 4.15; Education 2021: 3.76; Education 2022: 4.17; Education 2024: 3.72; Family Life 2024: 4.38; Leisure Time 2020: 3.78; Leisure Time 2021: 3.47; Leisure Time 2022: 3.77; Leisure Time 2024: 3.89; Living Standards 2020: 4.20; Living Standards 2021: 4.05; Living Standards 2022: 4.20; Living Standards 2024: 4.25; Local Environmental Quality 2020: 3.75; Local Environmental Quality 2021: 3.61; Local Environmental Quality 2022: 3.69; Local Environmental Quality 2024: 3.69; Mental Health 2020: 3.77; Mental Health 2021: 3.67; Mental Health 2022: 4.00; Mental Health 2024: 3.91; Physical Health 2020: 3.70; Physical Health 2021: 3.46; Physical Health 2022: 3.81; Physical Health 2024: 3.72; Safety and Security 2020: 4.17; Safety and Security 2021: 4.07; Safety and Security 2022: 4.22; Safety and Security 2024: 4.28; Social Connections 2020: 3.88; Social Connections 2021: 3.25; Social Connections 2022: 3.68; Social Connections 2024: 3.71; Transportation 2024: 3.81

Community Connection in Nibley

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Nibley on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 3.38.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Nibley. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Nibley as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 5% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 32% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 14% of respondents

When comparing survey data from Nibley over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average community connection score saw a decrease from 2020 to 2021, but has increased in each survey year since then.

Dot Plot. Title: Average Rating of Community Connection Over Time in Nibley. Subtitle: (Community Connection is rated on a scale from 1=Not at all to 5=A great deal) Data — 2020: 3.55; 2021: 3.02; 2022: 3.12; 2024: 3.38

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing, and to some extent between community connection and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Nibley. Data — Of the 5 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 43 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 86% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 14% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 171 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 59% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 100 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 29% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Nibley. Data — Of the 6 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 83% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 17% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 22 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 2, 73% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 49 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 76% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 149 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 53% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 83 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 36% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 64% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

The graph below shows how Wellbeing Project cities and towns compare on feelings of community connection based on the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or a 5 on a 5-point scale from “not at all” to “a great deal” connected to their city or town. Nibley ranked 16 out of the 51 cities that participated.

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 and 5 being a great deal. Data — City: Bluff 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midway 44% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Springdale 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Helper 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ivins 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Park City 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Emigration Canyon 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 58% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Orem 59% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 60% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyrum 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Pleasant Grove 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal 64% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ogden 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Heber 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Clinton 67% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Monticello 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Providence 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Haven 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 70% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 71% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Price 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale 75% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in various activities in the last 12 months. The most popular activities were walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (97%), gardening at home (87%), recreating in parks in your city (87%), and community events (85%).

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 — 97% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 87% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 87% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 85% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 78% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 74% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 61% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 52% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 39% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 3% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

Participating in city recreation programs, participating in community events, and recreating in parks in your city were significantly related to higher ratings of personal wellbeing.

Participating in city recreation programs was significantly related to higher ratings of community wellbeing.

Participating in city recreation programs, participating in community events, gardening at home, recreating in parks in your city, and using trails in or near your city were significantly related to higher ratings of community connection.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Nibley indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (83%). For the pace of economic development, respondents were split between opinions that it was just right (32%) and too fast (30%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Nibley? Data — Too Slow: 0% of respondents; Just Right: 10% of respondents; Too Fast: 83% of respondents; No Opinion: 7% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Nibley? Data — Too Slow: 19% of respondents; Just Right: 32% of respondents; Too Fast: 30% of respondents; No Opinion: 19% of respondents

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Nibley have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. The majority of respondents have consistently indicated that the rate of population growth is too fast, with a upward trend over the survey years. Perception that the pace of economic development is too fast decreased considerably from 2022 to 2024.

Line Graph. Title: Nibley Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 0.0% rated too slow, 32.3% rated just right, 59.7% rated too fast; 2021: 0.8% rated too slow, 20.1% rated just right, 74.3% rated too fast; 2022: 0.8% rated too slow, 12.5% rated just right, 81.7% rated too fast; 2024: 0.0% rated too slow, 10.2% rated just right, 82.6% rated too fast

Line Graph. Title: Nibley Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development. Subtitle: (Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion) Data — 2020: 19.4% rated too slow, 46.8% rated just right, 22.6% rated too fast; 2021: 10.1% rated too slow, 34.0% rated just right, 47.4% rated too fast; 2022: 12.3% rated too slow, 28.6% rated just right, 48.7% rated too fast; 2024: 19.3% rated too slow, 32.1% rated just right, 30.0% rated too fast

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Nibley compared to other participating cities and towns in the Rapid Growth Cities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Saratoga Springs 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 5% indicated that it was just right, 90% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Ivins 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 7% indicated that it was just right, 88% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Herriman 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 9% indicated that it was just right, 86% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Lehi 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% indicated that it was just right, 85% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Nibley 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 10% indicated that it was just right, 83% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Mapleton 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 80% indicated that it was too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: West Haven 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 77% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Hyrum 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 75% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Spanish Fork 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 74% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Vineyard 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 21% indicated that it was just right, 68% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Hyde Park 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Providence 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Clinton 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 63% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Wellsville 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Ivins 15% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 55% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Lehi 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 31% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Spanish Fork 6% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Saratoga Springs 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 36% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: West Haven 34% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 34% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Mapleton 31% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 33% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Nibley 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 30% indicated that it was too fast, and 19% had no opinion; City: Clinton 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Providence 12% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 27% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Hyrum 32% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 30% indicated that it was just right, 26% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Herriman 40% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 25% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Vineyard 50% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 21% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Hyde Park 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 18% had no opinion; City: Wellsville 37% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 44% indicated that it was just right, 7% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion

The graph below illustrates how many respondents perceived the pace of economic development as too slow, just right, too fast, or had no opinion, with additional breakdowns for the number of respondents who provided comments.

Sankey Graph. Title: Perceptions about the Pace of Economic Development in Nibley. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Nibley? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 290; No opinion: 54; Too fast: 87; Just right: 93; Too slow: 56; 'Too fast' without comment: 13; 'Too fast' with comment: 74; 'Too slow' without comment: 4; 'Too slow' with comment: 52

The 19% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too slow” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they would like to see more of in Nibley. A majority of the comments expressed a request for retail such as a grocery store or restaurants. Many respondents wanted close options for shopping that don’t involve going to Logan.

Additionally, the 30% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too fast” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they feel are growing too quickly in Nibley. Comments expressed that development of housing is too fast and outpacing infrastructure, resources, and school capacity. Many people were also frustrated about the loss of farms, open space, and the small town feeling of Nibley.

Transportation in Nibley

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in Nibley. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (100%) and walking (42%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in Nibley. Subtitle: What are your primary modes of transportation? (select all that apply on a regular basis) Data — 100% of respondents indicated yes to Personal Car; 42% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 26% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 8% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 2% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device; 0% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft)

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Nibley. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (47%) and Cost (32%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Nibley. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Travel time - 53% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 47% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Cost - 68% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 32% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 70% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 30% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 76% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 24% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 90% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 10% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 93% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 7% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 96% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 4% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 99% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 1% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a set of possible transportation developments in Nibley. The most important development to respondents were Enhancing safety (71%), Improving walkability (66%), and More trails (66%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in Nibley. Subtitle: On a scale of 1 - Not at all important to 5 - Very important, please rate the importance of the following developments to you. Data — Category: Enhancing safety - 29% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 71% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 34% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 66% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 34% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 66% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving road surfaces - 43% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 57% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 58% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 42% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 63% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 37% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 71% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 29% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of Nibley to another city or town. The most commonly indicated reasons for traveling to another city or town at least sometimes or once a month were Groceries (95%), Friends and Family (90%), and Eating Out (90%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of Nibley Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of Nibley to another city or town? Data — Category: Groceries - 5% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 95% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Eating Out - 10% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 90% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Friends and Family - 10% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 90% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 19% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 81% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 21% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 79% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 24% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 76% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 36% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 64% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 66% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 34% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 74% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 26% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

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. Open Space/Green Space (80%), Public Safety (76%), Traffic (75%), and Water Supply (74%) were the top concerns. Since 2022, moderate or major concern about public safety (+10%) notably increased, while concern about substance misuse (-16%), climate change (-14%), access to healthy/quality food (-11%), suicide (-11%), access to mental health care (-11%), affordable housing (-10%), and access to health care (-10%) notably decreased.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Nibley. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Nibley, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Open Space/Green Space - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 32% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 68% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 33% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 67% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 35% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 65% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 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 Healthy/Quality Food - 57% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 43% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 60% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 40% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 62% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 38% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 63% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 37% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 66% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 34% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 68% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 32% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 71% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 29% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 77% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 23% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 79% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 21% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 87% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 13% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 91% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 9% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for Nibley

Amenities in Nibley (2024)

When asked how important a set of amenities were to household wellbeing, the most important were pavilions and playgrounds, nature parks, trail development, and a library. An indoor recreation space, outdoor athletic fields and courts, and a seasonal ice rink/splash pad were also notably important.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Amenities in Nibley. Data — Category: Pavilions and Playgrounds - 5% of respondents rated it as not important, while 95% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Nature Parks - 9% of respondents rated it as not important, while 91% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Trail Development - 14% of respondents rated it as not important, while 86% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Library - 15% of respondents rated it as not important, while 85% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Indoor Recreation Space - 20% of respondents rated it as not important, while 80% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Athletic Fields and Courts (outdoor) - 22% of respondents rated it as not important, while 78% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Seasonal Ice Rink/Splash Pad - 24% of respondents rated it as not important, while 76% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: City-Owned Morgan Farm - 37% of respondents rated it as not important, while 63% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Performing Arts Stage - 37% of respondents rated it as not important, while 63% rated it as somewhat or very important.; Category: Bike Park - 38% of respondents rated it as not important, while 62% rated it as 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 an indoor recreation space, library, pavilions and playgrounds, and nature parks.

Likert Graph. Title: Attitudes Towards 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 - 13% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 36% indicated that they are neutral, and 51% support a tax increase; Category: Indoor Recreation Space - 20% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 24% indicated that they are neutral, and 55% support a tax increase; Category: Nature Parks - 16% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 33% indicated that they are neutral, and 51% support a tax increase; Category: Library - 18% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 30% indicated that they are neutral, and 52% support a tax increase; Category: Trail Development - 15% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 36% indicated that they are neutral, and 48% support a tax increase; Category: Seasonal Ice Rink/Splash Pad - 27% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 36% indicated that they are neutral, and 38% support a tax increase; Category: Athletic Fields and Courts (outdoor) - 27% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 38% indicated that they are neutral, and 35% support a tax increase; Category: Bike Park - 37% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 37% indicated that they are neutral, and 26% support a tax increase; Category: City-Owned Morgan Farm - 32% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 47% indicated that they are neutral, and 21% support a tax increase; Category: Performing Arts Stage - 40% of respondents indicated that they oppose a tax increase, 47% indicated that they are neutral, and 13% support a tax increase

Respondents were asked if they had any additional comments about Nibley City amenities or services. Recreation related comments focused largely on the need for indoor recreation space, more parks and playgrounds, outdoor fields, a splash pad, pickleball courts, walking/biking trails, and a dog park. There were some comments against building an indoor recreation facility. Other comments were diverse and emphasized some satisfaction regarding Nibley services as well as the need for attention to sidewalks and road safety, housing density, taxes and affordability, protecting green spaces and open spaces and a few other concerns.

Amenities in Nibley Over Time

Nibley also asked about amenity importance and support for their taxes in 2022. The changes in opinion from 2022 to 2024 are shown in the following two plots. The proportion indicating athletic fields and courts, indoor recreation space, and library were very important increased from 2022 to 2024. Support, even if it meant a modest increase in taxes, also increased for these three amenities from 2022 to 2024. 

Dot Plot. Title: Change in Importance of Amenities in Nibley. Subtitle: How important are the following amenities to the wellbeing of your household? Data — Athletic Fields and Courts (outdoor): Not important rating for 2022 is 19% and 22% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 48% and 41% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 33% and 37% for 2024; Bike Park: Not important rating for 2022 is 29% and 38% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 49% and 41% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 22% and 20% for 2024; City-Owned Morgan Farm: Not important rating for 2022 is 34% and 37% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 41% and 46% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 25% and 17% for 2024; Indoor Recreation Space: Not important rating for 2022 is 20% and 20% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 47% and 35% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 33% and 45% for 2024; Library: Not important rating for 2022 is 14% and 15% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 41% and 33% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 45% and 52% for 2024; Nature Parks: Not important rating for 2022 is 7% and 9% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 36% and 42% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 58% and 49% for 2024; Pavilions and Playgrounds: Not important rating for 2022 is 4% and 5% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 36% and 41% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 60% and 54% for 2024; Performing Arts Stage: Not important rating for 2022 is 33% and 37% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 51% and 49% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 15% and 14% for 2024; Seasonal Ice Rink/Splash Pad: Not important rating for 2022 is 21% and 24% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 44% and 44% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 36% and 32% for 2024; Trail Development: Not important rating for 2022 is 8% and 14% for 2024. Somewhat important rating for 2022 is 38% and 41% for 2024. Very important rating for 2024 is 53% and 45% for 2024

Dot Plot. Title: Change in Support for Increase in Property Taxes 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 — Athletic Fields and Courts (outdoor): 27% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 27% in 2024. 41% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 38% in 2024. 32% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 35% in 2024; Bike Park: 31% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 37% in 2024. 40% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 37% in 2024. 28% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 26% in 2024; City-Owned Morgan Farm: 30% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 32% in 2024. 45% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 47% in 2024. 25% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 21% in 2024; Indoor Recreation Space: 24% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 20% in 2024. 35% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 24% in 2024. 41% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 55% in 2024; Library: 23% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 18% in 2024. 29% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 30% in 2024. 49% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 52% in 2024; Nature Parks: 14% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 16% in 2024. 30% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 33% in 2024. 56% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 51% in 2024; Pavilions and Playgrounds: 10% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 13% in 2024. 34% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 36% in 2024. 56% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 51% in 2024; Performing Arts Stage: 37% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 40% in 2024. 49% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 47% in 2024. 14% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 13% in 2024; Seasonal Ice Rink/Splash Pad: 25% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 27% in 2024. 30% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 36% in 2024. 46% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 38% in 2024; Trail Development: 13% of respondents opposed in 2022 and 15% in 2024. 29% of respondents were neutral in 2022 and 36% in 2024. 58% of respondents were in support in 2022 and 48% in 2024

Availability of City Services and Programs in Nibley

The alignment of availability of city services and programs for respondents in Nibley for both 2022 and 2024 is shown below. For 2024, availability aligns with the hours of city services and programs in Nibley for 87% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Availability Alignment for City Services and Programs in Nibley. Subtitle: Does your availability align with the hours of city services and programs in Nibley? Data — 2022: 84% of respondents reported Yes; 2024: 87% of respondents reported Yes

Respondents were also asked if there are any changes in the hours of city services and programs that would be helpful to them or their household. There were a number of comments suggesting no changes needed. For others, there were requests for hours and activities beyond traditional work hours and weekdays.

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here.

What Respondents Value Most in Nibley

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Nibley. The most common words and phrases from all city comments are included in the word cloud below. It is possible that negative or unrelated words may appear since these words have been taken out of context, and they may not indicate the respondent’s intended meaning. Respondents mentioned that they value the social cohesion and connectivity with neighbors and friends in Nibley. The second most mentioned topic related to open space. Respondents also appreciated the recreation opportunities and access to nature.

A word cloud of most common words about what respondents value most in their city

Local Environmental Quality in Nibley

The 37% of respondents who rated the Local Environmental Quality domain as 1, 2, or 3 (Poor, Fair, or Moderate) were further asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel are problematic. Many comments focused on air quality and inversions in the winter. Many comments also noted the loss of open space due to housing developments and how they would like more areas for trails and revitalization of what open space they have left. A number of comments mentioned that open space is dirty and unkept, and trash is a common theme related to sidewalks and neighboring houses. 

Improving Wellbeing in Nibley

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Nibley. Many comments centered around transportation, asking for better walking paths and sidewalks, school crossing infrastructure, and reduced traffic. Respondents were also very vocal about growth and feel that there is too much housing development going on and are worried about losing their rural atmosphere. Increased recreation opportunities, especially indoor ones, were also mentioned.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Nibley. The topic of transportation was most prevalent, with people asking for decreased traffic, increased walkability, and the completion of certain road projects. Comments on growth and recreation were also mentioned frequently.

On This Page