Hinsdale County

Hinsdale County, Colorado — key demographics

Population size

• 2020 Census: 788 residents (down from 843 in 2010)
• 2023 estimate (Census Bureau Vintage 2023): ~756

Age

• Median age: ~61 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~10%
• 18 to 64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~36%

Gender

• Male: ~55%
• Female: ~45%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~93%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~4–5%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black: each ~1% or less

Households and housing (ACS 2019–2023; small-area estimates have larger margins of error)

• Households: ~380–400
• Average household size: ~1.9 persons
• Family households: ~55–60% of households
• Owner-occupied share: ~75–80% of occupied units
• Housing units: ~1,500, with a high share of seasonal/recreational vacancies

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (Vintage 2023).

Hinsdale County, CO snapshot

• Population 2020: 788; land area ~1,123 sq mi; density ≈0.7 residents/sq mi, among the sparsest in Colorado. Most residents cluster in/around Lake City.
• Estimated email users: 570 residents (about 72% of total; roughly 85% of adults).

Email users by age (percent of email users; approx counts):

• Under 18: 7% (~40)
• 18–34: 15% (~85)
• 35–54: 27% (~155)
• 55–64: 21% (~120)
• 65+: 30% (~170)

Gender split among email users: ~51% male, 49% female.

Digital access and connectivity trends

• About 74% of households maintain a broadband subscription; internet use among adults is in the mid‑80% range.
• Access is concentrated in Lake City; outlying areas rely more on fixed wireless and satellite. Mobile coverage is strongest along CO‑149 and town centers; mountainous terrain limits service in canyons and high basins.
• Ongoing fiber buildouts and adoption of low‑earth‑orbit satellite service are improving speeds and reliability, supporting higher email engagement.
• Public access points (library, school, county facilities) supplement home connectivity.

Insights

• Older residents show strong email use for telehealth, government notices, and banking.
• Younger users have higher smartphone‑only access, using email alongside messaging apps.
• Sparse population and rugged topography keep infrastructure costs high, making email a dependable communication channel for residents and second‑home owners.

Hinsdale County, CO mobile phone usage summary (focus on how it differs from statewide patterns)

Context and scale

• Population: 788 residents (2020 Census), spread across 1,123 sq mi (≈0.7 residents/sq mi). Lake City is the only town; the county is among the most rural in Colorado and is largely public land and high-alpine terrain. Seasonal visitation increases the on-network population several-fold in summer.

User estimates (resident base, 2024-derived)

• Resident smartphone users: approximately 550–650. This reflects a small, older-skewing population and rural adoption rates that trail Colorado’s urban averages.
• Active mobile subscriptions (phones, hotspots, tablets, IoT): on the order of 800–950, consistent with typical U.S. multi-line ownership in small households plus business and public-safety lines.
• Mobile-only internet households (rely on cellular hotspots or phone tethering as primary home internet): meaningfully higher than the Colorado average, plausibly in the low-to-mid teens percentage. This is driven by limited fixed broadband options outside Lake City and widespread second homes/cabins.

Demographic factors shaping usage (differences vs. Colorado overall)

• Age: Hinsdale has one of the oldest age profiles in the state (well above Colorado’s median age ~38). A large 65+ share moderates smartphone adoption and especially moderates intensive app/5G use compared with Front Range counties.
• Race/ethnicity: Predominantly non-Hispanic White with small Hispanic/Latino and other groups; minimal linguistic isolation. Device choice skews to mainstream national brands and carriers rather than MVNOs targeting linguistic niches.
• Household patterns: Many small and seasonal households, substantial share of off-grid or hard-to-serve properties. This raises reliance on cellular hotspots, external antennas, Wi‑Fi calling, and—in the most remote locations—satellite (e.g., Starlink) as a complement to cellular.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what’s different locally)

• 4G/LTE is concentrated in and immediately around Lake City and along CO-149. Moving into canyons, passes, and backcountry, coverage drops quickly; large no-signal zones are common. This contrasts with Colorado’s populous counties, where continuous LTE is the norm.
• 5G is limited and mostly low-band where present; mid-band 5G capacity that is common along the Front Range is largely absent. As a result, real-world 5G speeds and availability are well below statewide experience.
• Carrier mix: AT&T and Verizon provide the most reliable macro coverage along primary corridors and in town; T‑Mobile presence is spottier away from CO-149. Residents frequently use Wi‑Fi calling, boosters, and directional antennas—mitigations far less necessary in metro counties.
• Seasonal load: Summer tourism and events substantially increase simultaneous users on a small number of sectors in and near Lake City, producing congestion spikes that aren’t seen at the same scale in capacity-rich urban markets.
• Public safety and backcountry: Due to extensive dead zones, backcountry users commonly supplement with satellite messengers/PLBs. Local emergency planners emphasize radio and satellite interoperability—another divergence from metro counties that can rely more on ubiquitous cellular.

Usage patterns vs. Colorado averages

• Adoption and intensity: Overall smartphone adoption is slightly lower than the state average because of the older age structure; per-user data consumption is also lower on average, but with pronounced seasonal peaks from visitors.
• Access mode: A larger share of households depend on cellular hotspots or phone tethering for primary home internet relative to the state average, reflecting limited wireline reach outside the town center.
• Technology mix: Voice over Wi‑Fi, external antennas, and signal boosters play an outsized role in daily connectivity; 5G-specific use cases (e.g., high-capacity mid-band fixed wireless) are less prevalent than in Colorado’s metro counties.

Key takeaways

• Expect fewer total resident smartphone users but a high visitor-driven swing in active devices during summer months.
• Coverage quality hinges on proximity to Lake City and CO-149; beyond those areas, plan for intermittent or no service.
• Compared with statewide patterns, Hinsdale shows lower 5G availability, greater reliance on LTE, Wi‑Fi calling, and satellite complements, and a higher propensity for mobile-only home internet among outlying households.

Hinsdale County, CO social media snapshot (2025)

Note: County-level platforms do not publish user counts. Figures below are modeled estimates for Hinsdale County adults (18+), using the 2020 Census population base and Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. usage rates adjusted for an older, rural profile.

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: 74%
• Daily social media users: 60%
• Multi-platform users (3+ platforms): 38%
• Mobile‑only social users: 68%

Most-used platforms (share of adults)

• YouTube: 72%
• Facebook: 60%
• Instagram: 25%
• Pinterest: 24%
• TikTok: 16%
• LinkedIn: 16%
• Snapchat: 11%
• X (Twitter): 10%
• Reddit: 9%
• Nextdoor: 6%

Age-group usage (share using any social platform)

• 18–29: 95%
• 30–49: 86%
• 50–64: 76%
• 65+: 60%

Gender patterns (composition of each platform’s user base)

• Facebook: roughly even (≈51% female, 49% male)
• YouTube: slight male majority (≈55% male)
• Instagram, TikTok: slight female majority (≈55–60% female)
• Pinterest: female‑dominant (≈70% female)
• Reddit, X (Twitter): male‑leaning (≈65% male)
• LinkedIn: slight male majority (≈55% male)

Behavioral trends in Hinsdale County

• Community coordination is Facebook‑first: local groups and Pages (county/government updates, road closures, wildfire info, events) capture the highest resident engagement.
• Seasonal pattern: summer influx of visitors and second‑home owners drives visible spikes on Instagram/TikTok and higher evening/weekend activity; resident posting remains steadier on Facebook and YouTube.
• Content that performs: hyper‑local utility (trail and pass conditions, weather, closures), event announcements, outdoor visuals, short videos; posts with contact details and clear calls to action outperform.
• Posting cadence: best engagement windows are early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evening (6–9 p.m.) for residents; midday peaks rise May–September.
• Messaging and groups: Facebook Messenger and Groups dominate coordination; Nextdoor footprint is limited; WhatsApp appears among seasonal workers/visitors.
• Cross‑county follow: residents commonly follow adjacent counties and state agencies for highway/forest updates; cross‑posting into regional outdoor groups broadens reach.
• Platform roles:
  • YouTube for how‑to/outdoor and local business explainers; growing smart‑TV consumption.
  • Facebook for community news, recommendations, buy/sell.
  • Instagram for tourism and local businesses; Reels outperform photos.
  • TikTok remains niche among residents but influential for visitors discovering local attractions.
  • LinkedIn usage is modest and professional‑networking oriented; X/Twitter is low and mostly for information monitoring.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census for population base); Pew Research Center (2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption by age, gender, and community type). Figures are localized estimates reflecting Hinsdale County’s older, rural composition.