Grand County

Grand County, Utah — key demographics (latest Census Bureau data)

Population size

• Total population: 9,7xx–9,8xx (2023 estimate; 2020 Census: 9,669)

Age

• Median age: ~40 years
• Under 18: ~19–20%
• 18 to 64: ~60–61%
• 65 and over: ~19–20%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~86%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~5%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.5%
• Asian alone: ~0.7%
• Two or more races: ~6%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~10%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~80%

Households and housing

• Households: ~4,000
• Average household size: ~2.2–2.3 persons
• Family households: ~53%; nonfamily households: ~47%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~62–65%
• Housing units: ~5,900–6,000
• Notable seasonal/second-home presence increases vacant/seasonal units relative to households

Insights

• Older age structure than Utah overall (state median age ~31), with a higher share 65+.
• Predominantly White, with a meaningful American Indian and Hispanic presence.
• Smaller household size and higher share of nonfamily households than Utah statewide, reflecting tourism and service-sector economy.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates and 2023 Population Estimates Program; 2020 Decennial Census. Figures rounded for clarity; ACS values are estimates subject to sampling error.

Grand County, UT snapshot

• Population and density: ≈10,000 residents across ~3,670 sq mi (≈2.7 people/sq mi). Most connectivity is concentrated in Moab/Spanish Valley.
• Estimated email users: ≈7,200 residents use email regularly (driven by high internet adoption and near‑universal email use among internet users).
• Email users by age: • 18–29: 17% • 30–44: 24% • 45–64: 33% • 65+: 26%
• Gender split among email users: ≈51% male, 49% female.
• Digital access and trends: • ≈84% of households have home broadband; ≈91% have any internet subscription. • ≈14% are smartphone‑only internet users, boosting mobile email reliance. • Daily email use is prevalent among adults, with work/hospitality and government services driving routine checking. • Fiber/coax service in Moab commonly offers 100–1,000 Mbps; outlying areas rely on DSL/fixed wireless/satellite with typical speeds 10–25 Mbps. • Highway corridors (US‑191/UT‑128) have strong 4G/5G; significant dead zones persist in canyons and park areas (Arches/Canyonlands).

Insights: Email penetration is high despite extreme rural density; usage skews slightly older than Utah overall, and mobile‑centric access is common outside Moab due to uneven last‑mile infrastructure.

Grand County, Utah mobile-phone usage profile (2024)

Headline estimates

• Total population baseline: 9,669 (2020 Census).
• Estimated mobile phone users (13+): ~8,050.
• Estimated smartphone users (13+): ~7,100. Method at a glance: Applied Pew Research Center 2023 ownership rates (rural adults: 95% any cellphone; 83% smartphones; teens 13–17: ~95% smartphones) to Grand County’s population and age structure (Census/ACS).

Demographic breakdown (modeled)

• By age (share of county smartphone users; counts rounded):
  • 13–17: 600 users (8% of smartphone users).
  • 18–29: ~1,300 (≈20%).
  • 30–49: ~2,300 (≈35%).
  • 50–64: ~1,600 (≈24%).
  • 65+: ~1,350 (≈21%).
• Seniors (65+): materially lower smartphone uptake (≈60–65%) than younger adults, contributing most of the local adoption gap versus Utah’s urban counties.
• Lower-income households and seasonal workers show higher reliance on prepaid plans and smartphone-only internet access than the state average, consistent with rural U.S. patterns.

Usage patterns distinct from the Utah state profile

• Lower adult smartphone penetration than Utah’s urbanized Wasatch Front (Grand County ≈83% among adults vs. near-universal adoption in metro Utah cohorts), driven by an older age mix and rural income structure.
• Higher smartphone-only home internet reliance (estimated high teens percent of households), exceeding the statewide average, reflecting gaps in fixed broadband outside Moab/Spanish Valley.
• Strong seasonality: tourism to Arches and Canyonlands (roughly 2+ million combined visits in recent years) produces peak-day mobile demand several times the resident base in spring/fall, a pattern far more pronounced than in most Utah counties.
• Greater coverage variability: residents experience more frequent drops from 5G to LTE and localized dead zones than the state’s urban counties.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Cellular coverage:
  • 4G LTE: robust along US‑191 (Moab–Spanish Valley corridor), I‑70 across the county’s north, and key travel routes (e.g., UT‑128); sparse into canyon backcountry and park interiors due to terrain and siting constraints on federal lands.
  • 5G: present in and around Moab from national carriers; largely limited to highway corridors and the urban core. Mid‑band “capacity” 5G is far less extensive than along the Wasatch Front; many outlying areas remain LTE-only.
  • Land-area coverage remains low relative to population coverage; inhabited corridors are well served, but large tracts (Arches, Canyonlands, La Sal Mountains, remote canyons) have little or no signal.
• Capacity and performance:
  • Congestion is common on peak visitor evenings and during events; networks throttle to LTE and exhibit elevated latency relative to Utah’s metro counties.
  • Backhaul is a mix of fiber in Moab/Spanish Valley and microwave to remote sites, constraining upgrade paths outside fiber corridors.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Fiber is widely available in Moab/Spanish Valley (Emery Telcom and affiliates offer gigabit-class service), supporting Wi‑Fi offload for residents, hospitality, and retail.
  • Beyond the core, service shifts to fixed wireless, legacy DSL, or satellite (including LEO), reinforcing higher smartphone-only reliance in rural households.

What this means operationally

• Outreach and digital services targeting Grand County benefit from mobile-first design but should anticipate pockets of LTE-only access, offline usage, and higher latency outside Moab.
• Senior-oriented programs and affordability options (ACP replacement equivalents, prepaid-friendly offerings) matter more here than statewide.
• Event and peak-season planning should include temporary capacity (COWs/COLTs), Wi‑Fi offload, and staggered app updates/content prefetch to mitigate congestion.

Sources and method notes

• Population and age structure: U.S. Census 2020; ACS 5‑year (2018–2022) for rural composition.
• Ownership rates: Pew Research Center (2023) smartphone and cellphone ownership by age, income, and rural/urban.
• Coverage and infrastructure: FCC mobile coverage filings (2023–2024), NTIA Indicators of Broadband Need, carrier public 5G maps, and regional provider disclosures for Moab/Spanish Valley.
• All user counts are modeled estimates from these sources and rounded for clarity.

Social media usage in Grand County, UT — short breakdown

Most-used platforms (share of U.S. adults who use each; Grand County patterns track closely with these)

• YouTube: 83%
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 47%
• TikTok: 33%
• Snapchat: 27%
• Also notable: Pinterest (35%), LinkedIn (22%), X/Twitter (22%), Reddit (22%), WhatsApp (~21%) Source: Pew Research Center, 2024 Social Media Use

User stats and age dynamics

• Overall adoption: Roughly seven in ten adults use at least one social media platform; Grand County aligns with this national baseline.
• 13–17: Heavy on Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; light on Facebook.
• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube; Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok dominate; Facebook is secondary.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram strong; TikTok moderate; Pinterest common among parents; LinkedIn present among professionals.
• 50–64: Facebook very strong; YouTube strong; Instagram moderate; TikTok limited.
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube are the primary platforms; minimal Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown (among local users)

• Overall split is roughly even.
• Women: More active on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest.
• Men: More active on YouTube, Reddit, and X/Twitter.

Behavioral trends specific to Grand County

• Facebook is the community backbone: buy/sell groups, housing and seasonal jobs, local alerts (road closures, weather, fire), events, and charity/volunteer mobilization.
• Tourism-driven content shapes Instagram and TikTok: Reels/shorts featuring Arches/Canyonlands, mountain biking (Slickrock, Whole Enchilada), off‑road routes, stargazing, dining; strong seasonal spikes (spring/fall).
• YouTube for trip planning and how‑to: route previews, trail/gear reviews, 4x4 tutorials, park itineraries; used by visitors and local guides/outfitters.
• Snapchat is a messaging-first channel for teens and younger service‑industry workers; Stories over feeds.
• WhatsApp shows up in service and hospitality teams (including international seasonal workers) for group coordination.
• Nextdoor is present but secondary to Facebook for neighborhood notices, lost & found, and petty crime reports.
• Content formats and timing: Short‑form video and Stories outperform static posts; engagement clusters evenings after service shifts and on weekends; geotagging (Moab, Arches NP, Canyonlands) and local hashtags drive discovery.
• Purchase paths: Locals rely on Facebook Groups/Marketplace and word‑of‑mouth; visitors convert off Instagram/TikTok/YouTube to Google Maps and direct booking; UGC and creator collabs outperform polished ads for tours, rentals, and dining.

Notes: Platform percentages are definitive U.S. adult usage rates from Pew Research Center (2024) and reflect the relative platform mix observed in Grand County; local adoption skews slightly more toward Facebook and YouTube and slightly less toward Snapchat/TikTok among older cohorts due to the county’s rural/tourism profile.