Coconino County

Key demographics — Coconino County, Arizona

• Population size

  • 145,101 (2020 Census)
  • ~147,000 (July 1, 2023 estimate, U.S. Census Bureau)

• Age

  • Median age: ~31–32 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 65 and over: ~13%

• Gender

  • Female: ~48–49%
  • Male: ~51–52%

• Racial/ethnic composition (ACS)

  • White alone: ~58%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~27–28%
  • Two or more races: ~8%
  • Asian: ~1–2%
  • Black or African American: ~1–2%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: <1%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~16–17%
  • Non-Hispanic White alone: ~48–49%

• Households (ACS)

  • Total households: ~52,000–53,000
  • Average household size: ~2.7–2.8
  • Family households: ~60% (married-couple families ~40–45%)
  • Nonfamily households: ~40%
  • Households with children under 18: ~25–30%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2023 Population Estimates; American Community Survey 2019–2023 tables DP02, DP05; QuickFacts for Coconino County, AZ).

Summary (Coconino County, AZ)

Method: Estimates combine county population, ACS broadband access patterns, and national email-usage norms among internet users.

• Estimated email users: ~120–130k residents (roughly 80–90% of the ~145–150k population), reflecting high email use among internet users.
• Age distribution of email users (approx.):
  • 13–17: 6–8%
  • 18–34: 35–40% (boosted by Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff)
  • 35–54: 28–32%
  • 55–64: 11–14%
  • 65+: 12–15%
• Gender split: Roughly even (about 50/50 male/female), with minimal gender difference in email adoption.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription is widespread in Flagstaff and population centers; lower in rural/tribal areas (Navajo, Hopi, Hualapai) where fixed broadband availability and affordability lag.
  • Growing reliance on smartphones, fixed wireless, and satellite in remote areas; libraries, schools, and NAU provide key public Wi‑Fi access.
  • Ongoing state BEAD and Tribal Broadband Connectivity investments are targeting unserved/underserved areas.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Very low population density (~8 people/sq. mile across ~18,600 sq. miles), creating long, costly last‑mile builds and spotty coverage in the Grand Canyon and Northeast reservation areas.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Coconino County, Arizona

Context

• County profile: ~147–150K residents, anchored by Flagstaff (Northern Arizona University), Page/Lake Powell, Williams, Grand Canyon communities, and extensive tribal lands (notably Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai, Kaibab). Large land area, mountainous/forested terrain, and deep canyons create atypical radio-propagation challenges compared with much of Arizona’s metro-heavy population centers.

User estimates (transparent, order-of-magnitude)

• Adult base: ~114–118K adults (assuming ~78–80% of total population is 18+).
• Smartphone adoption among adults: 88–90% (slightly below statewide urban rates due to rural/tribal affordability and coverage constraints, but buoyed by the student population).
  • Estimated adult smartphone users: ~100K–106K.
• Teen smartphone users (12–17): ~9–11K (high adoption among teens; adds to county mobile user base).
• Total individual smartphone users (all ages): on the order of ~110K–120K.
• Total mobile phone users (smartphone + a small number of feature phones): ~112K–125K.
• Smartphone-only internet (no home broadband) share: likely above the Arizona average (state ~19–21% of adults). County estimate: ~22–28%, driven by students, lower-income households, and parts of tribal lands where fixed broadband is limited.
• Prepaid share: higher than state average due to students, tourism/seasonal workforce, and coverage-driven carrier switching.

Demographic patterns affecting usage

• Age:
  • 18–24 cohort is overrepresented (NAU), with very high smartphone adoption and heavy mobile data use; this pushes peak demand in the Flagstaff area and around campus.
  • 65+ segment smaller than state average; adoption is rising but still lags younger groups, reducing countywide smartphone penetration slightly below pure student-driven potential.
• Race/ethnicity and place:
  • Native American residents comprise a much larger share than statewide. On many tribal lands, mobile coverage and fixed broadband access are historically weaker; this produces higher smartphone-only reliance even when overall smartphone ownership may trail that of non-tribal areas.
  • Hispanic and lower-income households show above-average mobile-only reliance, consistent with statewide and national patterns.
• Geography:
  • Urban core (Flagstaff) resembles metro Arizona in adoption and device mix, including 5G usage.
  • Rural/remote communities (Grand Canyon, Cameron, Tuba City area, Kaibab Plateau) face coverage/speed variability, producing more conservative usage patterns, carrier switching for signal, and greater use of offline/low-bandwidth apps.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage and technology mix:
  • Strongest, densest coverage in Flagstaff and along I-17/I-40. Multiple carriers offer 5G in Flagstaff (mid-band where available), with low-band 5G/LTE extending along major corridors to Williams, Winslow, Page, and into Grand Canyon gateway areas.
  • Outside towns and highways, service relies on low-band spectrum; terrain shielding and long inter-site distances create dead zones and variable indoor coverage.
  • In-park service: Grand Canyon Village/Tusayan have service, but deep canyon areas have little to none; seasonal crowding can congest networks.
• Performance patterns:
  • Flagstaff: mid-band 5G typically delivers high double- to low triple-digit Mbps when available; indoor performance depends on building materials/elevation.
  • Rural/tribal areas: speeds often in the single digits to low tens of Mbps on low-band 5G/LTE, with pockets of no signal. Microwave backhaul and power resiliency can constrain capacity during storms or wildfires.
• Backhaul and middle mile:
  • Fiber is concentrated along interstate and state highways; microwave backhaul is common off-corridor.
  • State and tribal middle-mile builds funded in recent federal rounds are expanding reach toward underserved communities; benefits to mobile networks arrive as carriers light new fiber for tower backhaul.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • AT&T FirstNet Band 14 enhancements are present along key corridors and public safety sites; hardening and backup power are active concerns due to wildfire and winter storm risks.
• Tower siting and density:
  • Siting in forests, canyons, and tribal lands requires complex permitting and rights-of-way. This slows densification relative to Arizona’s metros and leaves larger cells with fewer sectors in remote areas.
• Tourism impacts:
  • 4–5 million Grand Canyon visitors per year create highly seasonal demand spikes in Tusayan, Grand Canyon Village, and Page/Lake Powell, stressing capacity in ways not typical for most Arizona counties.

How Coconino differs from Arizona statewide

• More extreme urban–rural divide: County averages mask a near-metro experience in Flagstaff vs sparse, terrain-limited service elsewhere; the gap is wider than the state’s overall metro-centric profile.
• Higher smartphone-only reliance: Students and households on or near tribal lands push the mobile-only share above the statewide average.
• Coverage constrained by terrain and land management: Forests, canyons, and protected lands make tower placement and line-of-sight backhaul harder than in flatter metro areas.
• Seasonal congestion: Tourism-driven peaks in Grand Canyon/Page areas create recurring capacity issues not seen at the same scale in Phoenix/Tucson.
• Carrier mix in practice: Residents often prioritize signal reliability over price, leading to more switching or multi-SIM strategies in fringe areas; prepaid and hotspot plans see heavier use where fixed broadband is weak.

Notes on uncertainty and data refinement

• Figures above are estimates synthesized from population structure, national/state adoption rates, and known local constraints; they should be refined with:
  • Latest ACS county demographics and device/broadband subscription tables,
  • FCC Broadband Data Collection mobile coverage maps and drive-test data,
  • Third-party performance datasets (Ookla/OpenSignal/M-Lab) for Flagstaff vs rural tracts,
  • Tribal connectivity reports and local carrier build disclosures.
• For planning, segment the county into: Flagstaff urban core; highway corridors; tourist nodes (Grand Canyon, Page, Williams); and remote tribal/forest areas—each has distinct demand and infrastructure realities.

Here’s a concise, planning-ready snapshot of social media use in Coconino County, AZ (2025 estimate). Figures are modeled from Pew Research’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption, adjusted to local age mix (college-town/Flagstaff) and regional norms; use for directionally accurate planning, not exact counts.

Overall user stats

• Population: ~145–150k; residents 13+: ~120–125k
• Social media users: ~105k–115k (70–78% of total; 85–92% of 13+)
• Daily use: ~65–75% of social users check at least once daily; ~40–50% check multiple times/day
• Access patterns: More “mobile-first” outside Flagstaff; strong campus Wi‑Fi use around NAU

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+; countywide estimates)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 60–70% (very strong in community groups and for public service updates)
• Instagram: 45–55%
• TikTok: 35–45% (skews young; strong around NAU)
• Snapchat: 30–40% (student-heavy)
• LinkedIn: 25–30% (NAU faculty/staff, grads, healthcare/government)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (DIY, travel, outdoors)
• WhatsApp: 20–25% (Latino, international, tribal networks)
• Reddit: 20–25% (tech/outdoors, student male skew)
• X (Twitter): 18–25% (news, wildfires/road closures)
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (homeowners in Flagstaff/Williams)

Age mix of social media users (share of total social users; estimates)

• 13–17: 7–10%
• 18–24: 22–26% (NAU influence; heaviest daily use)
• 25–34: 18–21%
• 35–49: 20–24%
• 50–64: 15–18%
• 65+: 8–10%

Gender breakdown

• Overall social users: roughly even (female 51–53%, male 47–49%)
• Platform skews:
  • More female: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest
  • More male: Reddit, X
  • Mixed/near-even: YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, WhatsApp

Behavioral trends to know

• Short-form video dominates: TikTok/Reels/Shorts drive discovery for local food, events, hikes, and Grand Canyon/Lake Powell trips; captions/overlays matter for silent autoplay.
• Community/info hubs: Facebook Groups and Pages are primary for housing, rides, yard sales, and public safety (wildfires, snow, ADOT road closures, forest alerts). Nextdoor used for neighborhood issues.
• Student cycles: Spikes in August and December/May for Marketplace (furniture, sublets), club recruiting, and event promos. Late-night engagement higher during semesters and finals.
• Tourism seasonality: Summer and holiday peaks lift Instagram/TikTok content and ad performance focused on national parks, Route 66, Snowbowl, and Page-area water recreation.
• Messaging > public posting: Instagram DMs and Snapchat are key among 18–24; WhatsApp common for family/community coordination.
• Cause/credibility: Strong engagement on environmental stewardship, wildfire mitigation, water issues; local gov, tribal governments, NPS/USFS, and Arizona Daily Sun pages are trusted update sources.
• Creative that works: Scenic outdoor visuals, practical itineraries, quick how‑tos, and student discounts. Geo-targeting to Flagstaff/Page/Williams and interest targeting (outdoor, travel, food, sustainability) perform well.

Notes and method

• Percentages are estimated by applying national platform adoption by age to Coconino’s younger-than-average population (NAU) and adjusting for rural/tribal access patterns. For precise planning, validate with platform ad-reach tools and a quick local survey.