Van Buren County

Key demographics: Van Buren County, Michigan

Population size

• 75,587 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age structure (ACS 2019–2023)

• Median age: 41.4 years
• Under 18: 22.8%
• 18–64: 58.6%
• 65 and over: 18.6%

Gender (ACS 2019–2023)

• Female: 50.4%
• Male: 49.6%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023)

• White, non-Hispanic: 76.8%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): 12.4%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: 4.5%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: 4.7%
• American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: 0.8%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: 0.6%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: 0.1%
• Some other race, non-Hispanic: 0.1%

Household data (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: 29,200
• Average household size: 2.56
• Family households: 64% (married-couple families: 47%)
• Households with children under 18: 27%
• One-person households: 26%
• Housing tenure: 77% owner-occupied, 23% renter-occupied

Insights

• Slightly older age profile than the state average
• Above-average Hispanic/Latino share for a Michigan county
• High owner-occupancy consistent with a largely rural county

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates

Van Buren County, MI (2020 pop. 75,587; land ≈607 sq mi) has a population density of about 125 people per square mile.

Estimated email users

• Adults (18+): ≈58,000
• Email adoption: ≈92% of adults ⇒ ≈53,000 users

Age distribution of adult email users (estimated using Pew U.S. adoption rates applied to local age mix)

• 18–29: ≈10.9k users (≈99% adoption)
• 30–49: ≈17.3k users (≈96%)
• 50–64: ≈14.4k users (≈92%)
• 65+: ≈10.7k users (≈80%)

Gender split

• Near parity; roughly 50% female, 50% male among email users (≈26.5k each).

Digital access and trends

• ≈86% of households have a broadband subscription; ≈11–12% lack home internet; ≈14% are smartphone‑only households.
• Email remains the most universal online activity; daily use skews younger and working‑age, while seniors participate slightly less but steadily rising.
• Connectivity is strongest in population centers and along major corridors; rural blocks show fewer fixed‑broadband options, increasing reliance on mobile and satellite.
• Implication: local organizations can reach ≈7 in 8 households via home internet and nearly all adults via email, with mobile‑optimized communication critical for smartphone‑only users.

Van Buren County, Michigan mobile phone usage summary (2025)

Population and total users

• Residents: ~75,000; households: ~29,000.
• Adult (18+) population: ~58,500.
• Mobile phone of any type (adults): ~96% → ~56,000 adult mobile users.
• Smartphone ownership (adults): ~89% → ~52,000 adult smartphone users.
• Teens (13–17): ~4,500; smartphone ownership ~95% → ~4,300 users.
• Total resident mobile users (all ages): approximately 60,000–61,000 unique users.

Demographic breakdown of use

• By age (smartphone ownership, county):
  • 18–34: ~96%
  • 35–64: ~91%
  • 65+: ~72–75% (lower than state average due to an older, more rural profile)
• By income (internet subscription behavior):
  • Households under $35k: mobile-data–only internet in ~35–40% of households.
  • Countywide mobile-data–only internet: ~21% of households (vs ~14% statewide).
• By household phone modality:
  • Wireless-only households (no landline): ~68% of households (vs ~71% Michigan overall; older/rural residents retain landlines at slightly higher rates).
• By race/ethnicity:
  • Hispanic/Latino households (about 10–12% of the county) show above-average smartphone dependence and higher likelihood of mobile-only internet subscriptions compared with county averages, consistent with state and national patterns.
• Work patterns:
  • Agriculture, manufacturing, and seasonal tourism drive heavy daytime voice/messaging and evening/weekend data peaks; prepaid and budget plans are more prevalent than in Michigan’s urban counties.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE: countywide baseline coverage from all three national carriers; signal quality weakens in some low-density inland townships and lakeshore dunes away from highways.
  • 5G: mid-band 5G (n41/n77) clusters in and around South Haven, Paw Paw, Hartford, Bangor, Lawrence, Gobles, Decatur, and along I‑94; extended-range 5G covers most settled areas, with inland gaps between villages.
• Capacity and speeds (typical user experience)
  • 5G mid-band in towns/corridors: ~150–400 Mbps down, 10–40 Mbps up, low latency.
  • Extended-range 5G/LTE in rural areas: ~20–100 Mbps down, 3–15 Mbps up; pockets fall to 5–15 Mbps during load or foliage/terrain constraints.
  • Seasonal congestion along the lakeshore (South Haven area, beach corridors) reduces median speeds noticeably on summer weekends and holidays.
• Sites and backhaul
  • Macro cellular sites in the county: on the order of 50–80, concentrated along I‑94, M‑43/M‑140, and population centers; growing number of small cells at I‑94 interchanges and in South Haven.
  • Multiple fiber routes parallel I‑94 and the rail corridor (Bangor line), supporting 5G backhaul; fiber is sparser inland, where some sectors still depend on microwave backhaul, constraining capacity.
• Public safety and accessibility
  • Text-to-911 is available via Van Buren County Central Dispatch.
  • FirstNet (AT&T) service is present; MPSCS towers provide robust public-safety radio, often co-sited with commercial infrastructure.

How Van Buren County diverges from Michigan statewide trends

• Slightly lower adult smartphone adoption (by ~2–3 percentage points) due to a higher rural and 65+ share.
• Higher reliance on mobile-data–only internet (about +7 points vs state) and greater use of prepaid/budget plans, tied to income mix and limited fixed broadband in some inland areas.
• More pronounced coverage and capacity gaps away from highway corridors and outside villages; Michigan’s metro counties have more uniform 5G mid-band coverage.
• Strong seasonality: summer tourism along Lake Michigan produces sharper weekend/evening congestion than the state average, impacting lakeshore sectors.
• Landline retention modestly higher than state average because of the county’s age/rural profile, despite overall wireless dominance.

Key statistics at a glance

• ~56,000 adult mobile users; ~52,000 adult smartphone users; ~60,000–61,000 total resident mobile users.
• Smartphone ownership (adults): ~89% county vs ~91–92% Michigan.
• Wireless-only households: ~68% county vs ~71% Michigan.
• Mobile-data–only internet: ~21% county vs ~14% Michigan.
• Typical speeds: 5G mid-band in towns ~150–400 Mbps; rural LTE/5G extended range ~20–100 Mbps, with summer lakeshore slowdowns.

Sources and methods

• U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 (population, households, age, income); CDC National Health Interview Survey 2023 (wireless-only households); Pew Research Center 2023 (smartphone ownership by age); FCC Broadband Map and carrier coverage disclosures through 2024–2025 for 4G/5G availability. County figures blend the latest published datasets with county demographic weighting to produce current, locally adjusted estimates.

Van Buren County, MI — Social Media Snapshot (2024)

User stats

• Population: ~75,600; adults (18+): ~58,700 (ACS 2023).
• Adults using any social media: ~83% ≈ 48,700.
• Gender among adult users: ~52% women, ~48% men.
• Daily use: ~70% of social-media-using adults check at least once per day.

Age groups (share of adults in each age group using any social platform)

• 18–29: ~95% use social media.
• 30–49: ~88%.
• 50–64: ~77%.
• 65+: ~50%.
• Teens (13–17, context): very high usage (~95%), concentrated on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat.

Most-used platforms among adults in the county (percent of adults; approximate user counts)

• YouTube: 83% (48.7k adults)
• Facebook: 68% (40.0k)
• Instagram: 47% (27.6k)
• Pinterest: 35% (20.5k)
• LinkedIn: 30% (17.6k)
• TikTok: 33% (19.4k)
• Snapchat: 27% (15.8k)
• X (Twitter): 22% (12.9k) Notes: Percentages reflect adult adoption; counts are rounded estimates by applying current U.S. adoption rates to the county’s adult population.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural/small-metro Michigan counties and reflected locally

• Facebook as the community hub: High engagement with local groups (schools, youth sports, church, township), events, and Marketplace; re-sharing of weather, closures, and road updates drives spikes.
• Short-form video first: Reels/Shorts/TikTok outperform static posts; authentic, handheld video about local life, farms, outdoors, and small businesses earns the most watch time.
• Messaging > public posting: Heavy reliance on Facebook Messenger; WhatsApp used within Hispanic/Latino communities and seasonal agricultural networks.
• Youth skew: Under 30s cluster on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok; they respond to challenges, humor, and creator-led recommendations more than brand pages.
• Older audiences: 50+ concentrate on Facebook and YouTube; how‑to, home/auto repair, gardening, hunting/fishing, and local government videos perform well.
• Seasonality: Summer tourism (South Haven area), fairs, and harvest season boost Instagram/TikTok and event-driven Facebook activity; weekend midday posting sees higher reach.
• Platform gender skews: Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube, Reddit/X. Local shopping and events see stronger female engagement; sports/outdoors and auto content skew male.
• Ads that work locally: Hyperlocal geo-targeting (10–20 miles around Paw Paw, South Haven, Hartford, Bangor), event RSVP ads, and video highlight clips; retargeting from Facebook/Instagram drives conversions for eateries, wineries, and service providers.

Method and sources

• Population and age structure from U.S. Census/ACS (latest available).
• Platform adoption and usage rates from recent national surveys (e.g., Pew Research Center 2023–2024); applied to the county’s adult population to produce the local estimates above.