Greenlee County

Key demographics for Greenlee County, Arizona (U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates):

Population

• Total population (2020 Census): 9,563

Age

• Median age: ~33 years
• Under 18: ~28–29%
• 65 and over: ~11%

Gender

• Male: ~61–62%
• Female: ~38–39%
• Notable male-majority driven by mining workforce

Race and ethnicity

• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~50–55%
• White alone, non-Hispanic: ~35–40%
• American Indian and Alaska Native: ~3–5%
• Black or African American: ~1%
• Asian: ~1%
• Two or more races and other: ~2–4%

Households and housing

• Total households: ~3,100–3,200
• Average household size: ~3.0
• Family households: ~70–75% of all households
• Married-couple families: ~50–55% of households
• Owner-occupied housing: ~65–72%; renter-occupied: ~28–35%

Insights

• Small, sparsely populated county centered on mining (Morenci/Clifton)
• Younger and more male than state and national averages
• Majority Hispanic community with larger-than-average household sizes

• Scope: Greenlee County, AZ (population 9,563; land area ~1,837 sq mi; density ~5.2 residents/sq mi)

• Estimated email users: ≈7,000 residents (≈73% of the population)

• Age distribution of email users:

  • 13–17: ~6%
  • 18–34: ~29%
  • 35–54: ~35%
  • 55–64: ~13%
  • 65+: ~17%

• Gender split among email users: ~62% male, 38% female (reflecting the county’s male‑skewed demographics)

• Digital access trends:

  • ~76% of households have a broadband subscription
  • ~89% of households have a computer or smartphone
  • ~16–18% are smartphone‑only internet users
  • Fixed broadband is concentrated around Clifton–Morenci–Duncan; outlying areas lean on satellite or fixed wireless, with mountainous terrain causing coverage gaps and variable speeds
  • Public libraries and schools provide essential Wi‑Fi; mobile coverage is strongest along US‑70 and US‑191

• Local density/connectivity insights:

  • Very low population density raises last‑mile costs; fiber and higher‑speed upgrades reach town centers first
  • Working‑age men dominate email usage due to the county’s industrial workforce profile; senior uptake improves where reliable in‑home broadband is available

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Greenlee County, Arizona

Context

• Population baseline: 9,563 (2020 Census). Current population is roughly 10,000, making Greenlee the least-populous county in Arizona, with residents concentrated in Clifton–Morenci–Duncan and large mountainous, sparsely populated areas elsewhere.

User estimates (2024)

• Estimated resident mobile users (unique individuals carrying a mobile phone): about 7,200–7,800. Method: applied current U.S. adult smartphone ownership (~90%) to Greenlee’s adult population plus high teen adoption; result aligns with rural working‑age profile and employer-issued devices at the Morenci copper operation.
• Estimated total active mobile subscriptions (human + work + secondary lines/tablets/IoT): roughly 14,000–16,000 lines. This is lower per capita than Arizona’s metro average but elevated for a rural county due to work phones and fleet/IoT attached to mining and logistics.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age structure: Younger than Arizona overall due to a large working‑age mining labor force and fewer retirees. Adoption is effectively universal in 18–54 and strong in 55–64, with a smaller but notable gap at 65+ compared with the state.
• Ethnicity: A higher share of Hispanic/Latino residents than the Arizona average. This correlates with strong family‑plan uptake, bilingual service preferences, and a somewhat higher prevalence of prepaid plans than in Phoenix/Tucson suburbs.
• Income and work profile: Median household earnings are bolstered by mining, supporting high-rate smartphone penetration and more dual‑SIM/work‑line usage than typical rural counties. Shift work and long commutes translate to above‑average mobile voice and messaging intensity vs. statewide norms.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Network footprint: All three national carriers operate in the county. 4G LTE is the primary coverage layer. 5G is present but largely low‑band and clustered around Clifton–Morenci and along US‑191/US‑70 corridors; mid‑band 5G coverage is much thinner than the statewide average, and there is effectively no mmWave.
• Terrain effects: Steep canyons and elevation changes create persistent dead zones away from towns and highways (notably along the Blue River/Eagle Creek areas and remote ranchlands). In-vehicle boosters and Wi‑Fi calling are common mitigation strategies.
• Backhaul and transport: Fiber backhaul is available in and between the main towns via regional providers, with microwave backhaul supporting remoter macro sites. Outside the population centers, backhaul constraints limit 5G capacity upgrades relative to Arizona’s metro counties.
• Home internet interplay: Wireline broadband options thin out quickly beyond town limits. As a result, mobile data is used as a primary or failover connection more often than the state average, and smartphone tethering/hotspot use is common. Fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps in ranching areas.

How Greenlee differs from Arizona overall

• Coverage composition: Reliance on LTE and low‑band 5G is higher, and mid‑band 5G capacity is lower than the state average dominated by Phoenix/Tucson deployments.
• Mobility intensity: Higher share of employer-issued and secondary lines than typical rural counties, driven by mining, but fewer connected devices per capita than metro Arizona where tablet/connected‑car penetration is higher.
• Connectivity behavior: A meaningfully larger share of households rely primarily on cellular for home connectivity or as a backup due to limited wired options outside towns, whereas urban Arizona skews to wired-first usage.
• Demographic drivers: Younger, working‑age skew and higher Hispanic share influence plan mix (family and prepaid), language needs, and near‑universal adoption among prime‑age adults; statewide, older suburban cohorts temper mobile‑only reliance.

Data notes

• Population: 2020 Census (definitive).
• User estimates: Derived by applying current U.S. smartphone ownership rates to Greenlee’s age profile and adjusting for local industry/work‑line patterns; subscription totals reflect typical rural line‑per‑capita ranges adjusted upward for employer devices.
• Infrastructure points reflect the FCC National Broadband Map and carrier build patterns in rural Arizona: LTE-dominant outside towns, limited mid‑band 5G, and terrain-constrained coverage.

Social media usage in Greenlee County, AZ — concise 2025 snapshot

How this was built

• Figures reflect Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adult platform adoption applied to Greenlee County’s small, male‑skewed, working‑age population profile; treat platform shares as local approximations. Sources listed at the end.

Overall penetration

• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈83% of adults (YouTube alone reaches 83% of U.S. adults; local usage is comparable)

Most‑used platforms (estimated adult reach, local, aligned to Pew 2024)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Pinterest: ~35%
• LinkedIn: ~30%
• WhatsApp: ~29%
• Snapchat: ~27%
• X (Twitter): ~22%
• Reddit: ~22%
• Nextdoor: ~20%

Age profile and platform mix (share of adults within each age band who use the platform; mirrors Pew 2024)

• Ages 18–29: YouTube ~93%, Instagram ~78%, Snapchat ~65%, TikTok ~62%, Facebook ~58%
• Ages 30–49: YouTube ~92%, Facebook ~77%, Instagram ~62%, TikTok ~39%, Snapchat ~31%
• Ages 50–64: YouTube ~83%, Facebook ~73%, Instagram ~40%, TikTok ~21%
• Ages 65+: Facebook ~62%, YouTube ~49%, Instagram ~15%, TikTok ~10%

Gender breakdown (local implications)

• Population skew: Greenlee’s workforce and industry mix skew male, so the social user base is likely majority male.
• Platform tilt by gender (behavioral, consistent with Pew 2024):
  • Women over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, WhatsApp
  • Men over‑index on YouTube, Reddit, X, Discord
  • Facebook and YouTube are broadly cross‑gender

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural, small‑population U.S. counties

• Community and information: Facebook Groups and local Pages serve as the primary hub for county news, school updates, emergency notices, buy/sell/Marketplace, youth sports, and events
• Video‑first consumption: YouTube is the default for how‑to content, local government recordings, and outdoor/recreation themes; short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) drives discovery for local businesses and events
• Messaging for coordination: Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp see heavy use for family, shift‑work coordination, and community organizing; WhatsApp adoption is stronger among Hispanic residents
• Youth usage: Teens/younger adults concentrate attention on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok; Facebook is retained for groups and events rather than daily posting
• Civic/neighbor networks: Nextdoor has a modest but meaningful footprint for road conditions, public works, and neighborhood safety; usage increases with age and homeownership
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the go‑to for person‑to‑person sales; Instagram is effective for local storefronts using Reels and Stories; LinkedIn usage is present but niche and tied to mining/industrial professionals

Practical takeaways

• Reach: Facebook + YouTube maximize adult reach; add Instagram for under‑50 coverage and TikTok to reach 18–34
• Groups matter: Invest in Facebook Groups/Pages and short video; cross‑post community information and events
• Visual storytelling: Short, authentic, place‑based video outperforms static posts across platforms

Sources

• Pew Research Center, “Social Media Use in 2024” (U.S. adult platform adoption and age splits)
• U.S. Census Bureau, Greenlee County profile/QuickFacts (population structure informing local skew)
• Pew Research Center, historical social media demographic patterns (gender and age behavior)