Park County

Park County, Colorado — key demographics

Population size

• 17,390 (2020 Census)
• Approximately 18,000 (latest Census Bureau estimates; continued modest growth since 2010)

Age

• Median age: about 49 years
• Under 18: ~18%
• 18 to 64: ~62%
• 65 and over: ~20%

Gender

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 5-year)

• White alone: ~93%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~1%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~9% Note: Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and overlaps with race categories.

Household data (ACS 5-year)

• Households: roughly 7,000–7,500
• Average household size: ~2.3 persons
• Family households: ~63%
• Married-couple families: ~54%
• Households with children under 18: ~22%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~80–85%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 5-year estimates (most recent available).

• Population and density: Park County had 17,390 residents in 2020 across ~2,211 sq mi (≈7.9 people/sq mi), reflecting highly dispersed, mountainous settlement.
• Estimated email users: ≈13,000 adult users. Basis: ~14,300 adults (≈82% of population) × ≈92% U.S. adult email adoption.
• Age distribution of email users (estimated, aligned to county age mix and national adoption by age): 18–34 ≈24%, 35–54 ≈34%, 55–64 ≈20%, 65+ ≈22%. Adoption is >90% for 18–64 and high but slightly lower among 65+.
• Gender split: Approximately even among users (≈50% male, 50% female), mirroring minimal gender gaps in email adoption nationally.
• Digital access trends:
  • Households with a computer: >90%.
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ≈82–85%.
  • Access strongest along the US‑285 corridor and in/around Fairplay and Bailey; many outlying areas rely on fixed wireless or satellite due to terrain.
  • Mobile data coverage is variable in canyons and high-elevation valleys; redundancy (cell + satellite) is common for remote households. Insights: Email penetration is effectively universal among working-age adults, with slight drop-off in seniors. Low population density and mountainous topography shape connectivity; where broadband is available, email usage matches urban rates, but last‑mile gaps persist in remote tracts.

Mobile phone usage in Park County, CO — 2024 snapshot

Size of the user base

• Population and households: About 18,800 residents and roughly 7,800 households (U.S. Census 2023 estimates).
• Mobile/smartphone access (ACS 2018–2022 5‑year, S2801):
  • Households with a smartphone: about 89% (vs ~92% statewide).
  • Households with any internet subscription: about 91% (vs ~94% statewide).
  • Households with a cellular data plan (smartphone/tablet/other): about 74% (vs ~79% statewide).
  • Households relying on satellite internet: about 6% (vs ~2% statewide).
  • Households with no internet subscription: about 9% (vs ~6% statewide).
• Practical user count: Applying smartphone household rates to Park County’s household base yields on the order of 6,900–7,100 smartphone-equipped households. Given the county’s age structure, this supports roughly 13,000–14,000 individual adult mobile users.

Demographic patterns that shape mobile usage

• Age: Park County skews older than Colorado overall, with a higher share of 65+ residents. This pulls down smartphone adoption among seniors relative to the state average and increases the share of residents who use simpler voice/text handsets or share devices within a household.
• Income and housing: Owner-occupied housing is dominant and rentals are scarce. In similar rural Colorado counties, smartphone adoption remains high across incomes but “cellular-only” home internet is most common among lower- and middle-income households and among renters; in Park County, the low renter share moderates this pattern but pockets of cellular-only reliance still appear where wired options are limited.
• Commute/telework: A significant commuter flow toward the Front Range and seasonal workers in tourism/recreation lead to time‑and‑location specific mobile demand spikes (corridors and towns) rather than uniformly high all-day usage seen in urban counties.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Terrain and settlement: Mountainous topography with dispersed housing creates coverage shadows outside towns and major corridors. Service is strong along US‑285 and CO‑9 (Bailey/Crow Hill, Jefferson, Fairplay/Alma), with weaker or no signal across parts of the South Park basin and forested canyons.
• Radio access:
  • 4G LTE is the baseline countywide technology; 5G coverage primarily tracks US‑285, CO‑9, and town centers. Outside those areas, devices frequently drop to LTE or 3G/NG coverage equivalents in fringe zones.
  • Capacity constraints are most visible on weekends/peak seasons when recreation traffic surges.
• Backhaul and last‑mile:
  • Middle‑mile fiber aligns with highway corridors; off‑corridor sites often depend on microwave backhaul, constraining capacity upgrades.
  • Wired last‑mile is uneven: cable or fiber is limited to select neighborhoods; DSL remains in legacy footprints with variable speeds; satellite and fixed‑wireless (multiple WISPs) fill gaps across ranchlands and subdivisions.
  • State and federal broadband programs (Colorado Broadband Office, BEAD/CPF era) have targeted Park County as “partially served,” prioritizing fiber and fixed‑wireless upgrades along and beyond the main corridors; as projects complete, expect better 5G densification via improved backhaul.

How Park County differs from the Colorado statewide pattern

• Slightly lower smartphone penetration: About 2–3 percentage points under the state, driven by an older age mix and rural settlement patterns.
• Higher reliance on non-wired internet: Cellular data plans and satellite subscriptions are meaningfully higher than statewide, reflecting limited cable/fiber footprints in many subdivisions.
• More coverage variability: Signal quality is strong along highways and in towns but drops quickly with terrain—far more dramatic than the state average.
• Greater peak-load swings: Recreation and weekend travel produce sharper, predictable congestion on specific sectors compared with urban counties.
• Slower 5G densification off-corridor: Upgrades track fiber and power availability; away from corridors, sites rely on microwave backhaul longer, delaying full 5G capacity benefits.

Implications and trends

• Mobile dependence as a primary or backup connection remains higher than the state average, especially in areas without cable/fiber. This sustains demand for higher-capacity LTE/5G plans and fixed‑wireless CPE.
• Senior adoption remains the main headroom for growth in smartphone penetration; targeted affordability and device‑support programs can lift usage.
• As funded middle‑mile and last‑mile builds come online, expect:
  • Better backhaul for macro and small‑cell sites, improving 5G consistency beyond towns.
  • A gradual shift from satellite/cellular‑only home internet to fiber or high‑capacity fixed‑wireless in currently underserved pockets.
  • Reduced corridor congestion during peak recreation periods through added site capacity and sector splits.

Notes on sources and methodology

• Household device and subscription statistics are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5‑year estimates (table S2801). County population and households reflect the Census Bureau’s 2023 vintage estimates. Infrastructure observations synthesize FCC coverage filings and Colorado broadband planning materials for rural mountain counties, applied to Park County’s geography and settlement patterns.

Park County, CO social media snapshot (estimated 2024)

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: 72% of residents 18+
• By age (share using social media):
  • 18–29: 88%
  • 30–49: 82%
  • 50–64: 70%
  • 65+: 48%
• By gender (share using social media): women 74%, men 70%

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults who use the platform)

• YouTube: 82%
• Facebook: 67%
• Instagram: 44%
• TikTok: 31%
• Pinterest: 31%
• LinkedIn: 26%
• Snapchat: 25%
• X (Twitter): 20%
• Reddit: 19%
• WhatsApp: 19%
• Nextdoor: 13%

Gender tendencies by platform (directional)

• More female-leaning: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok
• More male-leaning: YouTube, Reddit, X (Twitter)
• Roughly even: Snapchat, LinkedIn, WhatsApp

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural-mountain counties and reflected locally

• Facebook is the default community hub: county and town pages, buy/sell groups, wildfire/road condition updates, and event promotion drive the highest engagement.
• YouTube is utility-first: how-to content, homesteading/property upkeep, hunting/fishing, off-grid tech, and local business explainers perform well; viewers favor longer evergreen videos.
• Visual discovery for lifestyle and tourism: Instagram and TikTok skew 18–34 for hiking/4x4/ski-weekend content and local food/retail; Reels/shorts outperform static posts.
• Neighborhood coordination: Nextdoor use is concentrated along the US‑285 corridor communities for HOA notices, safety, and services.
• Connectivity shapes consumption: patchy broadband/cell coverage in outlying areas leads to mobile-first, asynchronous use; live video and high-bitrate streams underperform outside town centers.
• Daypart and seasonality: engagement peaks early morning and evenings (commuter schedules) and on weekends; seasonal spikes around summer outdoor activities and winter road/snow updates.
• Trust dynamics: posts from county agencies, sheriff/fire, schools, and established local groups carry outsized credibility; user comments/reviews influence service decisions more than polished brand ads.
• Ad and content performance: geo-targeting by specific towns/travel corridors, service-area maps, plain-language offers, and community partnerships outperform broad statewide targeting; short-form video and carousel posts drive clicks for local services.

Notes on figures

• Statistics are modeled for Park County using the county’s older age profile (ACS) combined with 2023–2024 Pew Research Center U.S. adult platform adoption and rural vs. urban usage deltas. They represent best-available local estimates in the absence of official county-level platform reporting.