Pima County

Pima County, Arizona – Key Demographics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 ACS 5-year)

• Population: 1,062,000
• Age:
  • Median age: 38.9
  • Under 18: 21.5%
  • 18–64: 58.9%
  • 65 and over: 19.6%
• Sex:
  • Female: 50.7%
  • Male: 49.3%
• Race/ethnicity (share of total population):
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): 39.6%
  • White alone, non-Hispanic: 47.0%
  • Black or African American alone, non-Hispanic: 3.5%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native alone, non-Hispanic: 3.9%
  • Asian alone, non-Hispanic: 3.2%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone, non-Hispanic: 0.2%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 2.7%
• Households:
  • Total households: 427,000
  • Average household size: 2.49
  • Family households: 59% of households
  • Married-couple households: 44% of households
  • Households with children under 18: 27%
  • One-person households: 30% of households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates (released 2024). Figures may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Pima County, AZ snapshot (2024)

• Estimated email users: ~900,000 residents (≈85% of the 1.06M population), reflecting ~93% adoption among active internet users.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: 5% (45k)
  • 18–34: 28% (252k)
  • 35–54: 31% (279k)
  • 55–64: 16% (144k)
  • 65+: 20% (180k)
• Gender split among email users: 51% female (460k), 49% male (440k); aligns with county demographics.
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~89% of households have a broadband subscription; ~94% have a computer device.
  • ~13% are smartphone‑only internet households; ~11% have no home internet subscription.
  • Adoption is highest in Tucson’s urban core; lower subscription and speeds persist in western and southern rural tracts.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • County population density ~120/sq mi overall; City of Tucson exceeds 2,000/sq mi, supporting dense cable/fiber coverage and extensive public Wi‑Fi in civic spaces and libraries.
  • 100/20 Mbps fixed broadband and 5G are widely available across the metro; distance from exchanges and legacy copper constrain rural performance and uptake.

Insight: With high urban broadband availability and an older‑leaning population, email remains near‑universal among working‑age adults and solidly adopted by seniors, making it a reliable channel countywide.

Mobile phone usage in Pima County, AZ — user estimates, demographics, and infrastructure (with county–state contrasts)

Headline numbers

• Population baseline: ~1.06 million (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 estimate), ~430,000 households.
• Estimated adult smartphone users: ~770,000 adults, based on Pima’s age mix and Pew Research 2024 smartphone adoption rates by age (approx. 97% ages 18–29, 95% 30–49, 83% 50–64, 76% 65+).
• Household reliance on mobile data: About 1 in 5 Pima households (≈18–20%, ~75,000–85,000 households) rely primarily or exclusively on a cellular data plan for home internet (ACS S2801-type pattern for large urban counties with lower median income), modestly higher than Arizona’s statewide share.

Demographic patterns shaping usage

• Age structure: Pima skews somewhat older than Maricopa but includes a large student population (University of Arizona), yielding a “barbell” effect—very high smartphone saturation among 18–29 and solid-but-lower adoption among 65+. Net effect: overall smartphone adoption a bit below Arizona’s urban average, but mobile app engagement and data use in the Tucson core is high.
• Income and mobile dependence: Pima’s median household income ($61–63k) trails the Arizona median ($72k). Lower-income households show higher rates of smartphone-only or cellular-data-only connectivity. This helps explain why Pima’s mobile-only share is slightly above the statewide average despite having a sizable metro area.
• Race/ethnicity and language: Approximately 38–39% Hispanic/Latino (vs. ~32% statewide). Nationally and in Arizona, Hispanic households are more likely to be smartphone-reliant for internet access; this aligns with Pima’s elevated mobile-only share relative to the state.
• Geography within the county:
  • Urban core (Tucson/South Tucson): near-ubiquitous 4G and dense 5G, strong uptake of mobile-only service in lower-income tracts.
  • Suburban foothills and eastside: high device penetration, more bundling with cable/fiber reduces cellular-only reliance.
  • Rural/tribal areas (e.g., western Pima, Tohono O’odham Nation): lower signal quality and sparser sites; mobile use is essential but constrained by coverage and backhaul.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Coverage and technology:
  • 4G LTE: effectively universal across populated areas.
  • 5G: all three national carriers provide broad 5G in the Tucson metro, including mid-band deployments along I‑10, I‑19, University of Arizona, downtown, and major arterials; coverage thins west of the Tucson basin.
• Capacity and densification: Tucson shows heavy small-cell and mid-band 5G infill compared with most Arizona counties outside Maricopa, supporting higher median mobile speeds and indoor coverage in the core.
• Fixed–mobile convergence: T-Mobile and Verizon 5G home internet have wide availability in the metro; adoption is notable in price-sensitive neighborhoods, reinforcing mobile-network dependence relative to wireline.
• Public/municipal assets: Tucson’s CBRS-based community wireless initiatives and extensive public hotspot lending through libraries are distinctive in Arizona, creating more on-ramps to mobile and mobile-adjacent broadband for students and low-income households.
• Rural/tribal gaps: Western Pima and tribal lands face fewer macro sites and backhaul constraints; recent federal/tribal broadband programs are improving conditions, but gaps remain larger than state averages dominated by Maricopa’s dense infrastructure.

How Pima differs from Arizona overall

• Slightly more mobile dependence: Pima’s mobile-only/cellular-data-only household share is a few points higher than Arizona’s statewide share, driven by lower median income and a higher share of households that rely on smartphones as their primary internet device.
• Stronger urban 5G densification outside Maricopa: Tucson’s mid-band 5G build and small-cell footprint are more advanced than in most non-Maricopa counties, supporting higher mobile speeds and usage in the urban core.
• Sharper urban–rural divide: Because Pima combines a large metro with very remote areas, its coverage and performance disparity across the county is wider than the statewide average, where Maricopa’s dominance elevates overall metrics.
• Distinct public-sector role: Tucson’s CBRS/community wireless programs and hotspot lending are more prominent than in most Arizona jurisdictions, boosting mobile access for underserved residents and students.

Practical implications

• User base size: Expect roughly three-quarters of a million adult smartphone users in Pima, with near-saturation among under-50s and rapid growth among seniors.
• Service planning: Operators see heavy campus/downtown demand and should continue mid-band densification, while western Pima and tribal areas need macro coverage, backhaul, and power resilience investments.
• Digital equity: Mobile-first strategies (subsidized plans, hotspot programs, 5G home internet) are especially impactful in South/Southwest Tucson and for Spanish-speaking and lower-income households, more so than statewide averages.

Social media usage in Pima County, AZ (2025 snapshot)

How many people use social media

• Population: about 1.06 million residents
• Adults (18+): about 830,000; teens (13–17): about 63,000
• Estimated social media users
  • Adults: ~72% use at least one platform ≈ 600,000 users
  • Teens: ~95% use social ≈ 60,000 users
  • Total (13+): roughly 660,000 users
• Connectivity context: about 88–90% of households have broadband, supporting high daily use

Most-used platforms (adults; estimated local penetration and counts)

• YouTube: 83% ≈ 690,000 adults
• Facebook: 68% ≈ 565,000
• Instagram: 47% ≈ 390,000
• TikTok: 33% ≈ 275,000
• WhatsApp: 29% ≈ 240,000
• Snapchat: 27% ≈ 225,000
• X (Twitter): 22% ≈ 180,000
• Reddit: 22% ≈ 180,000
• LinkedIn: 30% ≈ 250,000
• Nextdoor: 19% ≈ 160,000 Note: Percentages reflect the share of adults who say they use each platform; counts are estimates based on Pima’s adult population and mirror Pew Research’s 2024 U.S. adoption rates.

Age profile (estimated adoption in Pima, aligning with national patterns)

• 18–29: ~90%+ use social; heavy on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube
• 30–49: ~80%+; diversify across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp; strong Marketplace use
• 50–64: ~70%+; Facebook and YouTube dominate; rising Instagram use
• 65+: ~50%+; Facebook and YouTube primary; Nextdoor adoption strongest among homeowners

Gender breakdown (adults)

• Population is roughly 51% women, 49% men
• Social users skew slightly female overall (~52–53% women), with women over-indexing on Facebook/Instagram and men over-indexing on YouTube/Reddit/X

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Hyperlocal information: Facebook Groups and Nextdoor drive neighborhood news, safety alerts, road closures, monsoon and wildfire updates, lost-and-found pets, and yard/estate sales
• Strong community commerce: Facebook Marketplace is a primary channel for local buying/selling; Instagram Shops growing with small businesses and artisans
• Bilingual engagement: Large Hispanic/Latino population sustains high Facebook and WhatsApp usage; bilingual posts outperform monolingual content in community and event promotion
• University-driven dynamics: University of Arizona students push high evening and late-night engagement on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; spikes around athletics, campus events, and move-in/out cycles
• Visual outdoors culture: Instagram and TikTok content centered on hiking, parks (Saguaro NP, Sabino Canyon), local food, festivals, and sunsets performs best; short-form vertical video outperforms static images
• Civic and service use: Local government, school districts, libraries, and public health rely on Facebook and Nextdoor for reach; election cycles and extreme-weather periods produce marked engagement surges
• Cadence and timing: Evenings (after 6 p.m. MST) and weekends see the highest interaction; short videos and Stories/Reels consistently deliver above-average completion and share rates compared with static posts

Sources and method

• Population/broadband: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS (latest available)
• Platform adoption and age/gender patterns: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024
• County-level platform counts are modeled by applying Pew’s U.S. adult adoption rates to Pima County’s adult population; teen estimates use Pew’s national teen adoption rates.