Green County

Key demographics – Green County, Kentucky

• Population

  • 11,107 (2020 Census); roughly stable at about 11.1k in recent estimates

• Age

  • Median age: ~43
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 18–64: ~60%
  • 65 and over: ~18–20%

• Gender

  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%

• Race/ethnicity (shares of total population)

  • White (non-Hispanic): ~92–94%
  • Black or African American: ~3–4%
  • Two or more races: ~2–3%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~1–2%
  • Asian: ~0–0.5%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0–0.5%

• Households

  • Total households: ~4,500–4,600
  • Average household size: ~2.4
  • Family households: ~66–68% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~49–51% of households
  • Nonfamily households: ~32–34%; living alone ~28–30%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~77–78%

Insights

• Small, stable population with an older age profile than the U.S. overall.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with small Black and multiracial populations; Hispanic presence is modest but growing slowly.
• Household structure skews toward married-couple families and owner-occupied housing, with relatively small household sizes.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).

Green County, KY snapshot (estimates based on 2020–2023 Census/ACS and U.S. email-adoption benchmarks):

• Population: ~11,100; land area ~286 sq mi; density ~39 residents/sq mi (predominantly rural).
• Estimated email users: ~8,400 residents (≈76% of total).
• Age profile of email users:
  • 13–17: ~0.6k (7%)
  • 18–34: ~1.8k (21%)
  • 35–54: ~2.5k (29%)
  • 55–64: ~1.2k (14%)
  • 65+: ~2.4k (28%)
• Gender split among users: roughly even, ≈51% female and 49% male, reflecting the county’s slightly older, female-leaning population.
• Digital access and usage:
  • ~74% of households have a broadband subscription.
  • ~13% of households lack a computer.
  • ~10% have no home internet; ~18% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Younger users primarily access email via smartphones; older users rely more on home broadband.
• Connectivity context:
  • Service quality is strongest around Greensburg and primary corridors; outlying areas depend on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite, leading to lower speeds and variable reliability.
  • Rural dispersion and terrain increase last‑mile costs, which tempers heavy attachment use and encourages off‑peak email activity.

Mobile phone usage in Green County, Kentucky — 2024 estimate and key differences from statewide patterns

Topline usage

• Population and adults: 11,107 residents (2020 Census). Approximately 8,700 adults (18+).
• Mobile adoption: About 8,200 adult mobile users (94% of adults).
• Smartphone adoption: About 7,200 adult smartphone users (83% of adults), leaving roughly 1,000 adults using basic/feature phones or voice/text-only devices.
• Mobile-only internet households: About 875 households rely primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet (≈19% of an estimated 4,600 households).

Demographic breakdown of usage

• By age
  • 18–34: ~1,650 smartphone users (about 95% of ~1,740 adults), near-saturation but slightly below urban Kentucky peers.
  • 35–64: ~4,290 smartphone users (about 88% of ~4,870 adults).
  • 65+: ~1,250 smartphone users (about 60% of ~2,090 adults); this age group drives much of the local gap with the state average.
• By income
  • Lower-income households (under ~$35,000) represent roughly 40% of households locally, higher than the state share. In this segment, prepaid ownership and mobile-only home internet are notably higher than average.
  • Prepaid plans account for roughly 38% of local mobile subscriptions, versus a lower share statewide; they are concentrated among lower-income and older residents.
• By device type and plan
  • Feature/basic phones: About 11% of adult users locally, higher than Kentucky overall.
  • Multi-line family plans are less prevalent than statewide, with a comparatively higher share of single-line and prepaid arrangements.
• By race/ethnicity
  • The county’s population is predominantly White non-Hispanic, with small Black and Hispanic populations. After controlling for age and income, device ownership differences by race/ethnicity are minor at the county level.

Digital infrastructure and network characteristics

• Coverage and technology mix
  • 4G LTE coverage is strong in and around Greensburg and along primary travel corridors, with weak or inconsistent signal in some river valleys and low-lying or wooded areas away from main roads.
  • 5G availability is present primarily via low-band spectrum; mid-band 5G capacity is limited and concentrated in and near town, with little small-cell densification.
• Carriers and performance
  • AT&T and Verizon provide the most consistent rural coverage in the county; T‑Mobile coverage has improved with low-band deployments but remains more variable off the main corridors.
  • Network performance is capacity-constrained at cell edges; backhaul is a mix of fiber where available and microwave elsewhere, yielding more variability than in Kentucky’s metro counties.
• Emergency and public-safety readiness
  • Wireless Emergency Alerts are supported by national carriers. E-911 coverage is countywide, but user experience can degrade in dead zones typical of hilly terrain.
• Substitution effects
  • Because fixed broadband options are spottier outside town limits, mobile networks shoulder a larger share of household internet use than in most Kentucky counties.

How Green County differs from Kentucky overall

• Smartphone penetration: About 83% of adults locally versus an estimated 87% statewide. The gap is driven by a larger 65+ share and lower incomes.
• Feature/basic phone reliance: ~11% locally versus ~6% statewide, reflecting older demographics and coverage variability in outlying areas.
• Prepaid usage: ~38% of subscribers locally versus ~29% statewide, aligned with income mix and solo-line plans.
• Mobile-only home internet: ~19% of households locally versus ~13% statewide, indicating heavier reliance on cellular data where fixed broadband is limited or costly.
• 5G capacity: Mid-band 5G is less available than in Kentucky’s metro counties, limiting peak speeds and indoor coverage in outlying areas; upgrades are ongoing but sparse relative to urban Kentucky.
• Device refresh: A slower upgrade cadence than the state average, with more users holding onto LTE-only devices, dampening realized 5G adoption despite nominal coverage.

Implications and actionable insights

• Digital inclusion: Outreach should prioritize older and lower-income residents with training on smartphone use, telehealth, and safety apps; subsidized device upgrade programs would yield outsized benefit.
• Network planning: Additional mid-band 5G sectors and fiber backhaul to rural macro sites would reduce cell-edge congestion and improve indoor coverage, especially outside Greensburg.
• Public services: Given the above-average mobile-only household rate, county services, schools, and health providers should maintain mobile-optimized portals and offline-capable apps.
• Market opportunity: Prepaid and value-focused postpaid plans have stronger uptake locally; carriers can win share with aggressive rural coverage improvements, bundled hotspot data, and equipment financing that targets LTE-to-5G upgrades.

Methods and sources

• Population and household baselines: U.S. Census 2020 and ACS 5-year profiles for age and income structure.
• Device ownership and plan type benchmarks: Pew Research Center (2023) national and rural ownership rates, adjusted to the county’s age/income mix.
• Infrastructure characterizations: FCC coverage/technology disclosures and rural deployment norms for Kentucky; carrier public network disclosures and common rural deployment patterns in central Kentucky.

All figures are 2024 estimates synthesized from the above sources and the county’s demographic profile; numbers are rounded to reflect estimation precision while retaining comparability to state-level patterns.

Social media usage snapshot: Green County, Kentucky (2024)

Population baseline

• Residents: ~11,100
• Residents age 13+: ~9,550 (≈86% of population)

Overall social media adoption

• Monthly social media users (13+): ~7,050 (≈74%)
• Daily social media users (13+): ~5,350 (≈56%)
• Households with internet service: ~81% (broadband and/or cellular data)
• Adult smartphone ownership: ~87%

Most‑used platforms (monthly reach, share of residents 13+)

• YouTube: ~64%
• Facebook: ~60%
• Instagram: ~31%
• TikTok: ~27%
• Pinterest: ~22%
• Snapchat: ~20%
• X (Twitter): ~11%
• LinkedIn: ~8%

Age‑group usage (share using at least one platform monthly)

• 13–17: ~95% (YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok dominant; Facebook minority use)
• 18–29: ~96% (YouTube, Instagram, TikTok core; Facebook secondary)
• 30–44: ~88% (Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram moderate; TikTok growing)
• 45–64: ~72% (Facebook primary; YouTube strong; Pinterest notable among women)
• 65+: ~48% (Facebook first; YouTube second; limited use of others)

Gender breakdown

• Social media users: ~53% female, ~47% male
• Platform skews: Pinterest and Facebook lean female; YouTube and X lean male; Instagram/TikTok slightly female; Snapchat near even with a slight female tilt

Behavioral trends

• Community‑centric Facebook use: High engagement with school athletics, churches, local government and emergency updates, and Buy/Sell/Trade and Marketplace activity
• Video‑first consumption: YouTube widely used for how‑to content, product reviews (farm, outdoor, automotive), local music, and church streams; short‑form TikTok grows among teens and 18–34
• Messaging over posting: Many rely on Facebook Messenger and Snapchat for day‑to‑day communication; a majority consume/scroll more than they post
• Shopping behavior: Strong reliance on Facebook Marketplace and local groups for deals and second‑hand goods; lower uptake of Instagram Shops
• Peak times: Evenings 7–9 p.m. and weekend mornings see the highest activity; school‑year spikes around local sports and community events
• Trust patterns: Higher engagement with content from known local sources (friends, schools, churches, county offices) than with national outlets; practical, hyper‑local information outperforms generalized promotional content

Notes on figures

• Values are best‑fit local estimates for 2024 derived from Green County’s population and age mix (U.S. Census/ACS) combined with Kentucky rural adoption patterns and national platform usage benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research) adjusted for rural counties. Overlaps across platforms are expected because users multi‑home.