Kane County

Kane County, Utah — key demographics

Population size

• 7,667 (2020 Census)
• ~8,000 (2023 population estimate, U.S. Census Bureau)

Age

• Median age: about 45 years (ACS 5-year)
• Under 18: ~22–23%
• 65 and over: ~23–26%

Gender

• Male: ~50–51%
• Female: ~49–50%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 5-year)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~85–86%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~7–8%
• American Indian and Alaska Native: ~3%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Asian: ~0.5%
• Black or African American: ~0.3%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: ~0.2%

Household data (ACS 5-year)

• Households: ~3,100
• Persons per household (avg): ~2.4
• Family households: ~62–63% (majority married-couple families)
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~73–75%
• Total housing units: ~5,400, with a high seasonal/recreational vacancy share

Insights

• Older age structure than Utah overall, with roughly one quarter of residents 65+
• Predominantly White non-Hispanic with small Hispanic and Native American populations
• Smaller household sizes and high homeownership; many seasonal homes elevate vacancy rates

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

Kane County, UT snapshot (estimates derived from Census population and national adoption rates)

• Population density: ~1.9 people per sq mi across ~4,100 sq mi (2020 Census); residents cluster in Kanab and the US‑89 corridor, with vast public-land areas limiting infrastructure in between.
• Estimated email users: ~6,300 residents (≈82% of the population).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: ~12%
  • 18–34: ~23%
  • 35–54: ~29%
  • 55–64: ~14%
  • 65+: ~22%
• Gender split among email users: ~50% female, ~50% male; usage rates are effectively parity by gender.
• Digital access trends and local connectivity:
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~89%.
  • Households with a computer (desktop/laptop/tablet): ~93%.
  • Smartphone‑only internet households: ~9%.
  • Fiber and higher speeds are concentrated in Kanab and nearby towns; coverage thins rapidly toward Grand Staircase–Escalante and Glen Canyon areas, where terrain and distance drive gaps or lower speeds.
  • Overall internet adoption is high for a rural county, but service quality is markedly better in town centers than in remote tracts.

Insights: Email is near‑universal among working‑age adults and strong among seniors, with usage driven by broadband access in population centers; sparse settlement and protected lands are the main constraints on uniform connectivity.

Kane County, Utah: Mobile phone usage summary (distinct from state-level patterns)

User estimates (2024 best-available)

• Population base: roughly 8,000–8,600 residents; 6,500–7,100 adults.
• Mobile phone users: 6,200–6,700 adults with a cellphone (about 92–95% of adults, slightly below Utah’s ~96–98%).
• Smartphone users: 5,600–6,200 adults (about 85–88% of adults, meaningfully below Utah’s ~91–94% due to the county’s older age profile and rural coverage constraints).
• Average mobile data consumption: 18–22 GB per smartphone per month, below Utah’s urban-weighted 22–26 GB, reflecting more Wi‑Fi offload where fiber is available and more conservative use among seniors.
• Wireless-only households (no landline): 65–70% of households, below Utah’s ~75–78%, driven by a higher share of older residents who retain legacy lines or rely on VoIP via home broadband.
• Plan mix: prepaid/MVNO share around 25–30% of lines, above Utah’s ~18–22%, reflecting price sensitivity and coverage hedging with flexible plans.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age tilt: Kane County’s median age is notably higher than Utah’s; adults 65+ constitute a larger share of the population than the state average. Consequences:
  • Smartphone ownership among seniors is lower (roughly 75–80% vs. Utah seniors ~85–90%).
  • Heavier voice/SMS reliance and slower uptake of advanced app-based services and wearables.
• Household size and income: Smaller average household size and lower median household income than Utah overall correlate with:
  • Higher prepaid/MVNO adoption and slower flagship device upgrade cycles.
  • Greater use of Wi‑Fi calling at home to compensate for spotty outdoor coverage.
• Workforce and tourism effects: A sizable visitor economy (parks, public lands) produces seasonal congestion spikes; on holiday weekends and peak months, median download speeds can fall by 30–50% in and around Kanab and major corridors as transient users saturate sectors.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Coverage footprint: Population coverage is good along primary corridors and in towns, but land-area coverage is sparse. Large swaths of public land have limited or no signal; practical day-to-day service is concentrated where people live and travel.
• 5G availability:
  • Low-band 5G covers most populated stretches and highways, enabling broad but modest performance gains.
  • Mid-band 5G (the main driver of high speeds) is largely limited to Kanab and a few nearby nodes; it has not reached the density common along the Wasatch Front. As a result, Kane’s everyday 5G experience trails Utah’s urban counties in both speed and capacity.
• Performance: Typical median mobile downloads in populated areas range roughly 25–60 Mbps (uplink 5–15 Mbps), below Utah’s urban medians that often exceed 100 Mbps. Performance degrades quickly outside towns due to distance, terrain, and limited sectorization.
• Backhaul: Many rural sites rely on microwave backhaul, with fiber-fed macro sites clustered in and near Kanab and along main routes. Where fiber backhaul is present (supported in part by regional providers like South Central Communications), cell sites perform noticeably better and handle seasonal loads more reliably.
• Network build priorities: Small-cell density is minimal outside Kanab. Macro infill has focused on highway segments, schools, medical facilities, and public safety needs rather than broad-area rural blanket coverage.
• Carrier dynamics:
  • Verizon generally provides the most consistent rural footprint, followed by AT&T; T‑Mobile’s footprint is improving but remains more variable outside towns.
  • Subscriber share estimate: Verizon 45–50%, AT&T 30–35%, T‑Mobile 15–20%, with roaming-dependent MVNO usage higher than the state average.
• Public safety and resiliency: FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is present on main corridors and in towns but remains inconsistent in remote terrain; VHF/LMR remains critical for first responders. Power and backhaul redundancy are improving but not yet comparable to urban Utah, so extended weather events can affect uptime at a small number of rural sites.

Trends that differ from Utah overall

• Adoption level: Overall mobile and smartphone adoption are a few points lower than the state, primarily due to older age structure and patchier rural coverage.
• Technology mix: Lower mid-band 5G availability and fewer fiber-fed sites yield materially lower median speeds and capacity than Utah’s urban counties.
• Usage intensity: Monthly mobile data use per line is lower than the state average, with more reliance on Wi‑Fi offload where fiber is available and more conservative use among seniors.
• Plan economics: Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO offerings and slower device refresh cycles compared with the state’s urban corridors.
• Seasonality: Traffic spikes from tourism have an outsized impact on congestion and perceived quality, a pattern far less pronounced along the Wasatch Front.
• Infrastructure gap: Investment pace prioritizes corridors and community anchors over broad-area rural coverage; small-cell densification remains limited, keeping Kane’s service gap versus state urban norms persistent.

Actionable implications

• Targeted mid-band 5G upgrades in Kanab and adjacent communities, paired with fiber backhaul expansion, would narrow the performance gap most efficiently.
• Fill-in macro sites and microwave upgrades along key recreation corridors would mitigate seasonal congestion and extend safety coverage.
• Senior-focused device and plan programs, plus Wi‑Fi calling education, would raise effective connectivity without waiting for full rural buildout.
• With the lapse of ACP subsidies in 2024, maintaining affordable options via MVNO partnerships and community broadband can help prevent a widening digital divide.

Social media usage in Kane County, Utah (2024–2025 snapshot)

Headline user stats

• Population: ≈8,300 residents
• Internet/smartphone access: ~88% of households have broadband; ~90% of adults own a smartphone
• Total social media users (age 13+): ~5,630 (≈78% of residents 13+; ≈68% of total population)

Age breakdown of local social media users (≈5,630 users)

• 13–17: ~473 users (8%)
• 18–29: ~1,070 (19%)
• 30–49: ~1,834 (33%)
• 50–64: ~1,245 (22%)
• 65+: ~1,004 (18%)

Gender breakdown

• Women: 52% (2,930 users)
• Men: 48% (2,700 users)

Most-used platforms (share of local social media users who use monthly; counts rounded)

• YouTube: 81% (4,560)
• Facebook: 72% (4,050)
• Instagram: 46% (2,590)
• TikTok: 35% (1,970)
• Snapchat: 32% (1,800)
• Pinterest: 29% (1,630)
• Also-used but smaller: Messenger 61% (3,430), Reddit 16% (900), LinkedIn 14% (790), X/Twitter 12% (680), Nextdoor 7% (390)

Behavioral trends and usage patterns

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups, Events, and Marketplace for local news, school and road updates, county services, gear and vehicle sales.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for “how-to,” outdoor/recreation, trail and equipment content; short-form (Reels/TikTok) for trip ideas and local attractions.
• Tourism-driven content: Local businesses and creators lean on Instagram and TikTok to reach visitors (national parks, slot canyons, off-road areas); seasonal spikes in spring–fall.
• Messaging and private sharing: Facebook Messenger prevalent among adults; Snapchat common among teens/young adults for day-to-day communication.
• Platform-by-age: Teens/20s over-index on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; 30–49 splits use across Facebook, Instagram, YouTube; 50+ skews to Facebook and YouTube, with Pinterest among women.
• Engagement style: Higher interaction with posts from known individuals and local pages; practical posts (events, closures, deals, lost/found, service referrals) outperform national news.
• Timing: Highest local activity early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekend midday upticks for events and Marketplace.
• Advertising note: Geo-targeted Facebook/Instagram ads with tight radius and event- or need-based creative perform best; Nextdoor reach is modest due to small user base.

Method note

• Figures are modeled for Kane County using the latest ACS population structure and national/state platform adoption research (Pew Research Center, DataReportal). Expect ±3–5 percentage points variance at the county level due to small population and sampling limits.