Grantsville Wellbeing Survey Findings 2026

By Dr. Courtney Flint, Nicolas Holden, and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Grantsville is one of 57 cities and towns participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2026. 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 make this possible. A special thank you goes to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and the following cities for funding this project: Cedar City, Delta, Heber, La Verkin, South Weber, Vernal, West Bountiful, and West Valley City. We also acknowledge support from the Institute for Disability Research, Policy & Practice (IDRPP).

This report describes findings from the 2026 Grantsville survey and comparative information with other project cities and towns. In May 2026, Grantsville City advertised the survey for residents. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey. Cities and towns generally advertised the survey through newsletters, social media, emails, or other various efforts.

How many people responded?

  • 116 viable surveys were recorded in this 2026 survey effort.
  • The adult population of Grantsville was estimated at 9,403, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 116 survey responses in 2026 represent 1.2% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.04%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics Value
Full Time Residents of Grantsville 99.1%
Part Time Residents of Grantsville 0.9%
Length of Residency — Range 1-71 years
Length of Residency — Average 16.3 years
Length of Residency — Median 10 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 33.3%
City Area Percent
Grantsville 96.6%
Surrounding Area 3.4%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2020-2024 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, 2026 survey respondents were not fully representative of Grantsville. People who are adult females, have at least a 4-year college degree, or are married were overrepresented, while those who are adult males or do not have a college degree were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Grantsville 2026 Demographics. Subtitle: ACS = American Community Survey Estimate; UWS = Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate Data — Age 18-29: ACS: 22%, UWS: 8%; Age 30-39: ACS: 23%, UWS: 20%; Age 40-49: ACS: 22%, UWS: 30%; Age 50-59: ACS: 15%, UWS: 27%; Age 60-69: ACS: 10%, UWS: 7%; Age 70 or Over: ACS: 7%, UWS: 7%; Income under $25,000: ACS: 5%, UWS: 2%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: ACS: 7%, UWS: 9%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: ACS: 18%, UWS: 13%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: ACS: 20%, UWS: 19%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: ACS: 26%, UWS: 31%; Income $150,000 or over: ACS: 25%, UWS: 26%; Adult Female: ACS: 52%, UWS: 78%; Adult Male: ACS: 48%, UWS: 21%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 1%; Employed: ACS: 70%, UWS: 66%; Out of work and looking for work: ACS: 2%, UWS: 1%; Other: ACS: 28%, UWS: 33%; No College Degree: ACS: 79%, UWS: 60%; College degree (4-year): ACS: 21%, UWS: 40%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: ACS: 15%, UWS: 10%; Own home/Owner occupied: ACS: 85%, UWS: 90%; Married: ACS: 56%, UWS: 89%; Children under 18 in household: ACS: 53%, UWS: 57%; Disability*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 11%; Chronic Condition*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 32%; Hispanic/Latino: ACS: 11%, UWS: 5%; Nonwhite: ACS: 11%, UWS: 4%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 47%; Other Religion*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 14%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: ACS: NA%, UWS: 38%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Grantsville

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Grantsville. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Grantsville was 3.97 with 75% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Grantsville was 3.08 with 32% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Grantsville. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 18% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 29% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Grantsville. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Grantsville? Data — 1 Poor: 4% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 44% of respondents; 4: 28% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 4% of respondents

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. Grantsville is classified as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. Each cluster average represents the mean of the city and town means within each cluster.

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Grantsville was below the average overall personal wellbeing score and below the average overall community wellbeing score.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.73; Ogden Average Score 3.80; West Jordan Average Score 4.00; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Sandy Average Score 4.23; South Jordan Average Score 4.25; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.66; Logan Average Score 3.79; Cedar City Average Score 3.80; Woods Cross Average Score 4.03; Murray Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.07; South Ogden Average Score 4.16; West Bountiful Average Score 4.20; Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Lindon Average Score 4.23; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.27; Alpine Average Score 4.35; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.35; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Lehi Average Score 3.88; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.92; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.95; Grantsville Average Score 3.97; Mapleton Average Score 4.00; Wellsville Average Score 4.04; Enoch Average Score 4.08; Herriman Average Score 4.08; Bluffdale Average Score 4.16; Kamas Average Score 4.19; Kaysville Average Score 4.19; South Weber Average Score 4.20; Providence Average Score 4.26; Uintah City Average Score 4.34; Ivins Average Score 4.45; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 3.67; Tremonton Average Score 3.72; Vernal Average Score 3.75; Blanding Average Score 3.78; Moab Average Score 3.81; Bluff Average Score 3.98; Richfield Average Score 3.99; Nephi Average Score 4.01; Manila Average Score 4.13; Heber Average Score 4.19; Morgan Average Score 4.23; Springdale Average Score 4.27; Midway Average Score 4.38; Alta Average Score 4.44; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Delta Average Score 3.77; Ferron Average Score 3.89; Stockton Average Score 3.92; Orangeville Average Score 3.96; La Verkin Average Score 3.97; Lake Point Average Score 4.13; Lewiston Average Score 4.22; Toquerville Average Score 4.24; Mayfield Average Score 4.27

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2026). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.19; West Valley City Average Score 3.22; West Jordan Average Score 3.53; Millcreek Average Score 3.81; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.06; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Tooele Average Score 3.06; Cedar City Average Score 3.23; Logan Average Score 3.42; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.71; Woods Cross Average Score 3.74; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.81; Murray Average Score 3.86; Bountiful Average Score 3.93; South Ogden Average Score 3.99; Alpine Average Score 4.04; West Bountiful Average Score 4.06; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.16; Lindon Average Score 4.24; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Grantsville Average Score 3.08; Eagle Mountain Average Score 3.29; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.38; Kamas Average Score 3.50; Lehi Average Score 3.56; Herriman Average Score 3.66; Enoch Average Score 3.69; Mapleton Average Score 3.71; South Weber Average Score 3.75; Bluffdale Average Score 3.78; Wellsville Average Score 3.93; Kaysville Average Score 3.95; Ivins Average Score 4.00; Providence Average Score 4.03; Uintah City Average Score 4.13; Group: Rural Hub/Resort Communities — Wendover Average Score 2.92; Tremonton Average Score 2.94; Moab Average Score 3.12; Vernal Average Score 3.21; Blanding Average Score 3.33; Heber Average Score 3.51; Manila Average Score 3.51; Nephi Average Score 3.51; Richfield Average Score 3.57; Springdale Average Score 3.71; Bluff Average Score 3.80; Morgan Average Score 3.89; Alta Average Score 4.15; Midway Average Score 4.24; Group: Traditional Rural Communities — Stockton Average Score 3.30; Delta Average Score 3.35; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Lake Point Average Score 3.62; Orangeville Average Score 3.72; Ferron Average Score 3.76; Toquerville Average Score 3.83; Lewiston Average Score 3.99; Mayfield Average Score 4.08

Wellbeing Domains in Grantsville

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 Grantsville were Family Life (85%), Safety and Security (78%), and Mental Health (72%). The most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (98%), Mental Health (96%), Living Standards (96%), and Family Life (95%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Grantsville. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 15% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 85% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 22% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 78% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Mental Health - 28% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 72% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Living Standards - 31% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 69% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 35% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 65% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Physical Health - 42% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 58% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 47% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 53% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Social Connections - 50% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 50% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Transportation - 54% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 46% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 67% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 33% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Education - 68% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 32% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 75% of respondents rated it as 1 Poor, 2, or 3 while 25% rated it as 4, or 5 Excellent Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Grantsville. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Safety and Security - 2% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 98% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Living Standards - 4% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 96% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Mental Health - 4% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 96% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Family Life - 5% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 95% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Physical Health - 8% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 92% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -15% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 85% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Leisure Time -17% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 83% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Connection with Nature -19% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 81% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Education -27% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 73% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Transportation -30% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 70% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Social Connections -38% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 62% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -49% of respondents rated it as 1 Not at all important, 2, or 3, while 51% rated it as 4 or 5 Very important

Wellbeing Matrix for Grantsville

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

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

Community Connection in Grantsville

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Grantsville on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.73.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Grantsville. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Grantsville as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 17% of respondents; 2: 20% of respondents; 3: 41% of respondents; 4: 20% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 3% of respondents

To some extent, a positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing, but no clear relationship between community connection and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Grantsville. Data — Of the 7 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1, 2, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 18 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 94% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 6% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 49 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 82% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 18% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 28 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 61% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Grantsville. Data — Of the 7 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1, 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 22 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 82% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 18% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 51 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 75% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 20 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 75% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% 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 “1 Not at all” to “5 A great deal” connected to their city or town. Grantsville ranked 55 out of the 57 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 35% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 65% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Uintah City 39% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 61% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 40% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 60% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lindon 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alta 43% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Midway 45% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 55% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Morgan 46% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Murray 49% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 50% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kamas 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ogden 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ivins 53% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Moab 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 54% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mayfield 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Wendover 55% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Ferron 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Delta 56% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 44% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Springdale 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Richfield 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Orangeville 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Weber 57% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lewiston 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Heber 58% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Manila 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Nephi 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Enoch 60% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 61% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 39% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Sandy 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Toquerville 62% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Kaysville 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 63% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Logan 64% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Vernal 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Bluffdale 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Blanding 65% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Herriman 66% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Providence 67% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lake Point 68% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 69% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Woods Cross 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 70% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 71% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tooele 73% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 27% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Stockton 74% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Lehi 75% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 76% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Eagle Mountain 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Grantsville 77% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 81% of respondents indicated a 1, 2, or 3 while 19% of respondents indicated a 4 or 5

Disability in Grantsville

Survey participants were asked how well Grantsville included individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities. The largest proportion of respondents indicated they had no opinion or that the question was not relevant (45%). For those expressing an opinion, the largest proportion of respondents felt that they were somewhat (27%) included.

Bar Chart. Title: Inclusion for Individuals with Disabilities in Grantsville. Subtitle: How well does Grantsville include individuals with disabilities in social, recreational, and cultural activities? Data — 1 Not at all: 9% of respondents; 2 Somewhat: 27% of respondents; 3 Quite well: 18% of respondents; 4 Fully: 2% of respondents; No opinion/ Not relevant: 45% of respondents

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they participated in various activities over the past year. The activities in which respondents most commonly participated at least sometimes (about once a month or more frequently) were Gardening at home (84%) and Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (73%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequent Recreational Activities in Grantsville. Subtitle: How often have you participated in any of the following activities over the past year? Data — Category: Gardening at home - 16% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 84% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city - 27% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 73% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Recreating in parks in your city - 41% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 59% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Community events - 50% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 50% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: City recreation programs - 51% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 49% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Using trails in or near your city - 54% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 46% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Buying food from a farmer's market - 58% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 42% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 58% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 42% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week); Category: Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah - 58% of respondents indicated it was Rarely (a few times per year) or Never, while 42% of respondents indicated it was at least Sometimes (once a month), Regularly (about once per week), or Often (more than once per week)

Higher levels of community connection correlated with more frequent participation in community events, recreation in parks in your city, participation in city recreation programs, participation in non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, walking or biking in your neighborhood or city, and use of trails in or near your city.

Wellbeing and Urban/Rural Settings

Respondents were asked to indicate how important spending time in the different settings were to their wellbeing. The most important setting for Grantsville respondents was natural landscapes.

Likert Graph. Title: Importance of Urban and Rural Settings to Wellbeing in Grantsville. Subtitle: To what degree does your personal wellbeing depend on spending time in: Data — Category: Natural landscapes - 22% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 78% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Agricultural landscapes - 42% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 58% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Rural communities - 42% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 58% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important; Category: Cities or urban places - 86% of respondents indicated it was 1 not at all, 2 slightly, or 3 somewhat important, while 14% of respondents indicated it was 4 important or 5 very important

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Grantsville indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (91%). For the pace of economic development, the majority of respondents indicated that it was too slow (55%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Grantsville. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Grantsville? Data — Too Slow: 0% of respondents; Just Right: 8% of respondents; Too Fast: 91% of respondents; No Opinion: 1% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Grantsville. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Grantsville? Data — Too Slow: 55% of respondents; Just Right: 8% of respondents; Too Fast: 34% of respondents; No Opinion: 3% of respondents

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Grantsville 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% just right, 93% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Grantsville - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% just right, 91% too fast, and 1% had no opinion; City: Ivins - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% just right, 89% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Eagle Mountain - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% just right, 88% too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Lehi - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 11% just right, 84% too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 11% just right, 83% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Mapleton - 4% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 13% just right, 80% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Kamas - 4% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 18% just right, 76% too fast, and 2% had no opinion; City: Enoch - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% just right, 74% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Providence - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% just right, 67% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: South Weber - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% just right, 66% too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Kaysville - 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% just right, 61% too fast, and 9% had no opinion; City: Bluffdale - 3% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 26% just right, 60% too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Wellsville - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 35% just right, 55% too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Uintah City - 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 54% just right, 39% too fast, and 7% 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 - 12% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 21% just right, 61% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Lehi - 15% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% just right, 58% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Saratoga Springs - 20% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% just right, 48% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Grantsville - 55% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% just right, 34% too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Kamas - 35% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% just right, 33% too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Mapleton - 39% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% just right, 31% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Providence - 14% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 44% just right, 30% too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Enoch - 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% just right, 26% too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: South Weber - 24% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% just right, 26% too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Herriman - 37% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 34% just right, 25% too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Wellsville - 27% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% just right, 24% too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Kaysville - 27% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 41% just right, 22% too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 25% just right, 22% too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Bluffdale - 33% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% just right, 22% too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: Uintah City - 9% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 66% just right, 16% too fast, and 9% had no opinion

Survey respondents were asked if there are any aspects of the local economy they would like to see changed in the next five years. Respondents expressed a desire for more businesses and shopping options, as well as improved infrastructure to support the town’s growth. Many noted that the current pace of development is too rapid, with insufficient attention paid to planning and governance. Some respondents also highlighted concerns about affordability, including high housing prices and utility bills, and suggested that developers should be held accountable for their contributions to these issues. Additionally, several comments emphasized the importance of preserving open spaces and green areas, which were seen as essential to the town’s character and quality of life.

Cost of Living in Grantsville

Respondents were asked to indicate how affordable certain expenses were in Grantsville. The most difficult expenses were Childcare (74%), Housing (50%), and Healthcare (45%). Note that a high percentage (66%) of respondents found Childcare expenses not relevant to them.

Likert Graph. Title: Cost of Living in Grantsville. Subtitle: How EASY or DIFFICULT is it for your household to COVER EXPENSES related to the following? Among respondents for whom each expense was relevant; 'Not relevant' shown separately. Data — Category: Childcare - 66% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 74% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 26% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Housing - 4% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 50% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 50% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Healthcare - 1% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 45% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 55% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Utilities - 0% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 42% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 58% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Food - 0% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 39% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 61% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford; Category: Transportation options - 11% said it was not relevant. Of those that found it relevant, 39% of respondents indicated that it was difficult or very difficult to afford, while 61% indicated that it was just affordable, easy, or very easy to afford

Transportation in Grantsville

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Grantsville. The most problematic barriers were Cost (77%), Travel time (66%), and Lack of routes (61%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Grantsville. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Cost - 23% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 77% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Travel time - 34% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 66% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 39% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 61% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 65% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 35% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 69% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 31% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 85% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 15% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 91% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 9% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 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

Concerns in Grantsville

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Grantsville. Water Supply (97%), Traffic (93%), and Opportunities for Youth (78%) were the top concerns.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Grantsville. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Grantsville, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Water Supply - 3% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 97% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Traffic - 7% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 93% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 24% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 76% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Wildfire - 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 30% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 70% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 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: Public Safety - 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 41% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 59% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 47% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 53% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthy/Quality Food - 49% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 51% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 51% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 49% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 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 Mental Health Care - 59% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 41% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 61% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 39% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 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 - 74% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 26% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 76% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 24% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Treatment - 76% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 24% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Use - 76% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 24% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here. The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including the Llama 3 large language model, accessed locally through Ollama, and a machine learning classifier, in the analysis of open comments. These tools were used for initial topical coding and draft summaries of comments. All comments, codes, and summaries were reviewed and edited by the authors for accuracy and clarity.

What Respondents Value Most in Grantsville

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Grantsville. The most common words and phrases from all 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 highly valued the small town feel and sense of community in Grantsville, with many expressing a strong appreciation for the rural character, friendly people, and peaceful atmosphere. They noted the importance of knowing their neighbors and being part of a close-knit community, which is often contrasted to the hustle and bustle of city life. The availability of open spaces, quiet evenings, and proximity to natural amenities were also highlighted as key aspects that make Grantsville an attractive place to live.

A word cloud of some of the most popular words and phrases about what people value living in Grantsville includes: small town, community, town feel, rural, people, quiet, close, family, grantsville, and salt.

Local Environmental Quality in Grantsville

Survey respondents were asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel pose a significant threat to wellbeing in Grantsville. Water scarcity and quality were prominent concerns among respondents, with many expressing worries about dwindling water supplies and poor infrastructure to support the growing population. Concerns surrounding rapid growth were prevalent, with respondents highlighting the strain it puts on existing resources, including roads, schools, and natural areas. Some comments specifically mentioned the importance of preserving the Great Salt Lake and its surrounding ecosystems, which are facing threats from overdevelopment and pollution.

Improving Wellbeing in Grantsville

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Grantsville. Respondent comments highlighted a desire for growth and development to be managed more thoughtfully, with a focus on preserving the town’s character and rural charm. Many emphasized the need for improved infrastructure, including roads, sidewalks, and public transportation, as well as enhanced recreational opportunities and community events. There was also a sense of frustration with the city government’s handling of development, taxation, and transparency, with some calling for greater accountability and a more representative council.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Grantsville. Many respondents were concerned and frustrated with the rapid growth and development in Grantsville, which has led to perceived issues with affordability, traffic, and infrastructure. Many respondents emphasized the importance of slowing down growth and prioritizing the needs of existing residents, including addressing increasing taxes and cost of living. Some also expressed appreciation for the town’s small-town feel and rural character, but noted that these qualities are being eroded by unchecked development.

On This Page