Jackson County

Jackson County, Colorado — Key demographics (latest available; primarily ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates; 2020 Census noted)

Population

• Total population: ~1,360 (ACS 2019–2023); 1,379 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~49 years
• Under 18: ~18%
• 18 to 64: ~60%
• 65 and over: ~22%

Sex

• Male: ~53%
• Female: ~47%

Race and ethnicity

• White, non-Hispanic: ~85–88%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~8–10%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: <1%

Households and families

• Households: ~650
• Average household size: ~2.1 persons
• Family households: ~60% of households
• Married-couple households: ~50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~20–25%
• Nonfamily households: ~40% (individuals living alone ~30–35%; 65+ living alone ~10–15%)
• Housing tenure: owner-occupied ~70–75%; renter-occupied ~25–30%

Insights

• Very small, sparsely populated county with an older age profile.
• Male share modestly higher than female.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a small but notable Hispanic/Latino population.
• Household sizes are small; a large share of nonfamily and single-person households.

• Scope: Jackson County, Colorado (population ~1,400; ~1,614 sq mi; density ~0.9 people per sq mi, among Colorado’s most sparsely populated counties; most residents live in/near Walden).
• Estimated email users: ~1,050 (about 75% of residents; roughly 88–90% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users (reflecting the county’s older skew):
  • 18–34: 23% (240 users)
  • 35–54: 32% (335 users)
  • 55–64: 16% (170 users)
  • 65+: 29% (305 users)
• Gender split among email users: 52% male (545), 48% female (505), mirroring the county’s slightly male-leaning population.
• Digital access and usage trends:
  • Households with fixed broadband: ~70–75%.
  • Smartphone-only internet access: ~8–10%.
  • No home internet: ~15–20% (email often accessed via mobile or public access points).
  • Adoption is strongest in Walden and along main highway corridors; outlying ranchlands rely more on satellite and mobile hotspots.
  • Email remains the default digital identity for services (banking, government, retail), with steady growth driven by improved satellite options and ongoing rural broadband investments.
• Insight: Despite very low population density, adult email adoption is high; remaining gaps align with fixed-broadband availability rather than willingness to use email.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Jackson County, Colorado

Snapshot

• Population and density: 1,404 residents across 1,614 square miles (2020 Census), roughly 0.9 people per square mile—one of Colorado’s most sparsely populated counties.
• Implication: Extremely low density and mountainous terrain make mobile coverage and capacity materially different from state averages and urban corridors.

Estimated mobile user base (people, not lines)

• Method: Apply nationally observed ownership rates, adjusted for rural/older profiles, to Jackson County’s 2020 population.
  • Age structure assumption consistent with rural mountain counties and Census patterns: ≈20% under 18, ≈56% ages 18–64, ≈24% 65+.
  • Ownership assumptions (Pew Research, rural adjustments):
    • Ages 18–64: ~98% have a cell phone; ~88–90% have a smartphone.
    • Ages 65+: ~92% have a cell phone; ~75–80% have a smartphone.
    • Ages 12–17 (subset of under 18): ~95% have a phone; ~90% smartphone. Younger children: substantially lower.
• Resulting point estimate (rounded):
  • Total people with a mobile phone: ~1,100–1,200 (about 78–85% of the total population, recognizing that the “population” denominator includes young children).
  • Total smartphone users: ~900–1,000.
  • Practical takeaway: The county likely has near-universal mobile ownership among adults but meaningfully lower smartphone penetration than Colorado’s urban Front Range.

Demographic factors shaping usage (compared with Colorado overall)

• Older age profile: Jackson County’s median age is markedly higher than the state’s (~37–38 statewide). Higher 65+ share depresses smartphone adoption and app-centric usage relative to Colorado averages.
• Income and sector mix: A larger share of employment in agriculture, forestry, and outdoor services correlates with more time in low-signal areas, heavier use of voice/SMS and offline-first apps, and greater reliance on signal boosters than in Colorado’s metro counties.
• Household broadband gaps: A higher rate of households lacking cable/fiber service pushes some residents to rely on cellular data or satellite at home, increasing sensitivity to signal quality and data caps versus state norms.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Radio access
  • 4G LTE is the primary coverage layer, concentrated in and around Walden and along State Highways 14 and 125. Large backcountry areas exhibit weak or no signal.
  • 5G availability is limited and predominantly low-band (coverage-first) rather than capacity-focused mid-band. Expect little to no mid-band 5G (e.g., C-band) footprint countywide compared with the extensive mid-band deployments in Colorado’s urban counties.
  • Terrain effects: Deep valleys and forested areas cause sharp coverage drop-offs even a short distance off highways or outside town limits.
• Carriers and roaming
  • National carriers (AT&T/FirstNet, Verizon, T-Mobile) provide the foundational coverage where present; in more remote zones, roaming partners (e.g., regional rural carriers) may underlie service for some plans.
  • Public safety: FirstNet low-band spectrum increases outdoor reach near core corridors but does not eliminate dead zones in wilderness areas.
• Backhaul and middle mile
  • Fiber presence exists in Walden to anchor institutions; beyond town, backhaul is sparse and often microwave-fed, constraining capacity and upgrade economics relative to the Front Range’s dense fiber grids.
• Device and accessory implications
  • Higher-than-average use of external antennas, boosters (CEL-FI, vehicle-mounted units), and Wi‑Fi calling at home to mitigate indoor coverage gaps.
  • Satellite broadband (e.g., Starlink) adoption is notably higher than the state average, offloading home data from cellular but not altering on-the-road coverage constraints.

Usage patterns and trends that differ from state-level

• Coverage-driven behavior
  • More voice/SMS-first communication in the field and heavier reliance on offline-capable apps (maps, recreation, agriculture) than in metro Colorado, where always-on 5G data is assumed.
  • Greater persistence of mixed-device base (basic/feature phones plus smartphones) among older residents versus Colorado’s urban counties, which are overwhelmingly smartphone-only.
• Capacity and performance
  • Lower median mobile speeds and higher variability than state averages due to low-band-only 5G and longer LTE cell radii. Congestion spikes occur during seasonal tourism and events but overall traffic is thinly distributed.
• Access substitution
  • Higher share of households using cellular as primary or backup home internet compared with Colorado overall, driven by limited cable/fiber availability in unincorporated areas.
• Safety and recreation
  • Wider and more predictable dead zones than the state average necessitate planning for no-service segments during hunting, snowmobiling, and backcountry travel; this is far less common along the Front Range.

Key takeaways

• Expect ~1.1–1.2 thousand mobile users in a county of 1.4 thousand people, with ~0.9–1.0 thousand smartphone users—lower smartphone penetration and more uneven mobile data access than Colorado’s metros.
• Infrastructure realities—low-band 5G, sparse sites, limited backhaul—define the user experience far more than in the state’s urban areas, keeping voice/SMS and coverage planning central to daily use.
• Investment needs differ from state-level priorities: additional macro and small-site infill along SH‑14/125, expanded mid-band 5G only where backhaul allows, and continued middle‑mile buildout to raise capacity and reliability.

Sources underpinning assumptions and contrasts

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population and land area).
• Pew Research Center (smartphone and cellphone ownership by age and rural/urban cohorts, 2021–2023).
• FCC mobile coverage and broadband availability maps (2023–2024) for rural Colorado patterns and carrier footprints.

Social media usage in Jackson County, Colorado (2024–2025 snapshot, modeled from Pew Research Center’s rural U.S. usage benchmarks applied to Jackson County’s ACS age/gender profile)

Overall users

• Share of residents (13+): ~65% use at least one social platform
• Adults (18+): ~65%
• Daily users (of any platform): ~48% of residents (13+) engage daily

Age-group penetration (share using at least one platform)

• 13–17: ~92%
• 18–29: ~86%
• 30–49: ~78%
• 50–64: ~65%
• 65+: ~44% Insight: The county’s older-leaning population lowers overall penetration; usage is very high among teens/younger adults and drops steadily with age.

Gender breakdown (share using at least one platform)

• Female: ~67%
• Male: ~63% Platform-specific gender tilt: Women over-index on Facebook and Instagram; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, and X.

Most-used platforms among adults (adoption; “of adults who use the platform” daily use in parentheses)

• YouTube: ~75% (55–60% daily)
• Facebook: ~63% (70% daily)
• Instagram: ~35% (60% daily)
• TikTok: ~25% (60% daily)
• Snapchat: ~20% (65% daily; concentrated <30)
• X (Twitter): ~16% (50% daily; news-oriented)
• LinkedIn: ~20% (25% weekly; work/use is sparse)
• Reddit: ~18% (45% weekly; mostly male 18–34)
• Nextdoor: ~6% (neighborhood density limits adoption)

Behavioral trends

• Community coordination: Heavy use of Facebook Groups/Pages for county updates, school/road/wildfire notices, events, and buy–sell–trade. Messenger is a default for local contact; SMS remains common.
• Practical video consumption: YouTube dominates for how‑to content (ranching, equipment maintenance), outdoor recreation (hunting/fishing), and product research; uploads are less frequent than views due to bandwidth constraints.
• Tourism and visuals: Instagram usage clusters around outfitters, guides, lodging, and seasonal tourism; content spikes around hunting season and summer recreation.
• Youth patterns: Teens/young adults favor Snapchat and TikTok for daily messaging and short‑form video; cross‑posting to Instagram Stories is common. Facebook is primarily for family/community info rather than daily posting.
• News and emergencies: Local information discovery centers on Facebook; X is niche and used mainly by a small set of news/government observers. During wildfire/severe weather, Facebook engagement surges.
• Posting vs. lurking: A minority of residents post regularly; most are “lurkers” who check feeds and groups daily but post infrequently, reflecting small‑town visibility concerns and limited creator culture.

Data notes

• Figures are best-available estimates for Jackson County derived from 2023–2024 Pew Research Center rural U.S. platform usage by age/gender, scaled to the county’s small, older-leaning population per recent ACS. County-level social platform censuses are not published; use these as decision-grade approximations for planning and outreach.