Highland County

Highland County, Ohio — key demographics

Population

• 43,613 (2023 population estimate)
• 43,317 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: 41.6 years
• Under 18: 23.3%
• 65 and over: 18.9%

Gender

• Female: 50.7%
• Male: 49.3%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: 94.8%
• Black or African American alone: 1.2%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 0.3%
• Asian alone: 0.3%
• Two or more races: 3.4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 1.6%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 93.6%

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: 16,900
• Persons per household: 2.59
• Homeownership rate: 73.5%

Insights

• Older-than-national age profile with nearly one in five residents 65+
• Predominantly White population with small minority and Hispanic shares
• High homeownership and typical household size for rural Ohio

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2023 Population Estimates; 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Highland County, OH snapshot

• Population and density: 43,317 residents (2020 Census) across ~553 sq mi; ~78 people per sq mi, indicating predominantly rural connectivity conditions.
• Estimated email users: 30,000–33,000 residents (roughly 70–75% of total population), driven by ~90%+ adoption among adults.
• Age distribution of email users (adults): 18–34: 28% (8.5–9.5k); 35–54: 41% (12–13.5k); 55–64: 14% (4–4.6k); 65+: 17% (5–5.6k). Usage stays high into older ages but trails younger cohorts.
• Gender split among email users: ~51% female, ~49% male, mirroring the county’s slight female-majority adult population.
• Digital access trends: Roughly four in five households maintain a home broadband subscription, with notable gaps in higher-speed options in outlying townships. Smartphone-only internet access is common for rural residents (on the order of one in five adults), and most email users check mail on mobile. Cable and DSL are the primary fixed options; fiber is growing along major corridors and in/near Hillsboro and Greenfield, while satellite and fixed wireless backfill less-dense areas.
• Connectivity insight: The county’s low density and dispersed settlements correlate with higher last‑mile costs and more variable speeds, shaping heavier mobile reliance and mixed-quality home access.

Highland County, Ohio — mobile usage snapshot and how it differs from the state

Scale and user estimates

• Population baseline: 43,317 residents (2020 Census); about 77% are adults (~33,300 adults).
• Adult mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ~31,800–32,300 adults (roughly 95–97% of adults, in line with rural U.S. cell-phone ownership).
• Adult smartphone users: ~28,000–29,000 adults (about 84–88% of adults; rural rates trail Ohio’s statewide ~90–92%).
• Households with a smartphone: ~14,000–14,400 of ~16,700 households (about 84–86% vs Ohio ~90%+).
• Mobile-only home internet households (smartphone/cellular plan and no fixed subscription): 2,200–2,600 households (roughly 13–16%), notably above the Ohio average (8–10%).
• Prepaid share of lines: estimated 28–35% (higher than Ohio’s largely postpaid urban mix), reflecting price sensitivity and weaker credit access in rural markets.

Demographic usage patterns (distinctive local tilt)

• Age:
  • 18–34: very high smartphone adoption (~95–98%), close to state averages.
  • 35–64: high adoption (~90–94%) but a few points below statewide.
  • 65+: materially lower adoption (~73–80%), and Highland’s older age structure raises the countywide share of basic/voice-centric users.
• Income and education:
  • Below-median income households are more likely mobile-only for home internet and slightly less likely to own newer smartphones; this group is larger in Highland than in Ohio overall.
  • Lower bachelor’s attainment than the state average correlates with a modestly higher reliance on prepaid and older devices.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • The county’s relatively homogeneous population means fewer usage differences by race/ethnicity than seen statewide; differences are driven more by age, income, and rural geography.

Digital infrastructure and coverage realities

• Coverage footprint:
  • 4G LTE from national carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) blankets towns and primary corridors (Hillsboro, Greenfield; US-50, US-62, OH-73). Signal reliability drops in hilly, wooded eastern tracts and lake/park areas (e.g., around Rocky Fork and Paint Creek).
  • 5G availability is primarily low-band for wide-area coverage; mid-band 5G (which drives faster speeds) is concentrated in and near Hillsboro/Greenfield. This is thinner than the mid-band saturation common in Ohio metros.
• Performance:
  • Typical in-town downloads: ~25–100 Mbps on 4G and low-/mid-band 5G; uplink ~3–15 Mbps.
  • Outlying areas can fall to single-digit Mbps, with greater variability and latency—meaning more buffering and poorer video-call quality than statewide metro norms.
• Capacity and spectrum:
  • Rural sites lean heavily on low-band spectrum (600/700/850 MHz) for reach; mid-band capacity (e.g., 2.5 GHz, C-band) is present but sparse relative to Ohio cities, limiting peak speeds and crowding performance during busy hours.
• Backhaul and redundancy:
  • Fewer fiber-fed macro sites than in urban Ohio; more microwave backhaul persists, which can constrain capacity under load. Redundancy is improving but still behind state urban standards.
• Fixed-broadband interplay:
  • Cable/fiber availability is confined mainly to towns; many rural homes rely on fixed wireless or cellular-only. This elevates mobile network load for homework, telehealth, and streaming more than the statewide pattern.

What’s most different from Ohio’s statewide picture

• Higher mobile-only dependence: A meaningfully larger share of households rely on cellular service as their sole home internet, driving heavier data use on mobile plans.
• Slightly lower smartphone penetration: Countywide adoption trails Ohio by several points, largely due to older age mix and lower incomes.
• Prepaid prevalence: A higher prepaid share than state urban centers, reflecting budget-focused usage and intermittent coverage considerations.
• Patchier mid-band 5G: Coverage and capacity hotspots are confined to population centers; exurban and valley areas see more frequent fallbacks to LTE or low-band 5G.
• Greater performance variability: Daytime and event-driven slowdowns are more pronounced than in Ohio metros because of fewer high-capacity sites and more limited backhaul.

Implications

• Network planning: Additional mid-band 5G sectors and fiber backhaul to rural sites would materially improve consistency and uplink performance.
• Affordability and inclusion: Subsidized plans and device-upgrade programs can close the remaining adoption gap, particularly for seniors and lower-income households.
• Public services and emergency comms: Coverage hardening along rural corridors and recreation areas would yield outsized reliability benefits compared with urban-focused upgrades.

Highland County, OH social media snapshot (modeled to 2024 using Pew Research national platform adoption by age/gender mapped to the county’s older, rural age profile; population 43,317 per 2020 Census)

Overall use

• Adults (18+) using at least one social platform: ~70% of adults
• Rural/older skew lifts Facebook, slightly suppresses Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat compared with U.S. averages

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults who use each)

• YouTube: ~78%
• Facebook: ~71%
• Instagram: ~39%
• Pinterest: ~36%
• TikTok: ~25%
• WhatsApp: ~22%
• X (Twitter): ~20%
• Snapchat: ~19%
• LinkedIn: ~18%
• Reddit: ~16%
• Nextdoor: ~10% (limited by low suburban density; Facebook groups fill the “neighborhood” role)

Age-group usage patterns

• Any social media by age: 18–29 ~84%, 30–49 ~81%, 50–64 ~73%, 65+ ~45%
• Platform tilt by age:
  • 13–24: Snapchat and TikTok dominate daily time; YouTube near-universal; Instagram strong
  • 25–44: Facebook + Instagram core; YouTube very high; TikTok moderate
  • 45–64: Facebook primary; YouTube strong; Pinterest solid among women
  • 65+: Facebook first; YouTube for news/how‑to; limited use of TikTok/Snapchat

Gender breakdown (approximate user mix by platform)

• Facebook: ~56% women, 44% men
• Instagram: ~52% women, 48% men
• TikTok: ~57% women, 43% men
• Pinterest: ~70% women, 30% men
• Snapchat: ~55% women, 45% men
• YouTube: ~48% women, 52% men
• X (Twitter): ~40% women, 60% men
• Reddit: ~30–34% women, 66–70% men
• LinkedIn: ~46% women, 54% men
• WhatsApp: ~50% women, 50% men

Behavioral trends to expect locally

• Community-first Facebook: Heavy use of local groups for school updates, road closures, lost-and-found pets, local politics, and Facebook Marketplace. “What’s happening in [township/city]” groups drive word-of-mouth.
• Video as utility: YouTube is the how‑to hub (home/auto repair, outdoor and farm equipment, hunting/fishing, church and event streams). Short, practical videos outperform long, polished promos.
• Visuals with people: Photos featuring recognizable local people (high‑school sports, fairs, parades, church and nonprofit events) earn outsized engagement.
• Deals and local commerce: Facebook boosts and Marketplace posts convert better than generic brand posts. Limited but growing Instagram shopping among 20s–30s.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is the default; WhatsApp use is niche. Younger users coordinate via Snapchat; businesses should not rely on Snapchat DMs for service.
• News and weather: Severe-weather and utility outage updates see peak reach and shares, especially via Facebook. Cross‑posting a brief YouTube clip can extend reach.
• Timing and cadence: Engagement skews to evenings and weekends; consistent posting (2–4x/week) with timely, community-relevant hooks performs best.
• Nextdoor gap: Sparse Nextdoor penetration shifts neighborhood chatter to Facebook groups; moderating and participating there matters more than creating new channels.

Sources and method

• Base demographics: U.S. Census (2020) for Highland County population and age structure
• Adoption rates: Pew Research Center Social Media Use (latest through 2024) by platform, age, and gender
• County figures are modeled estimates applying national platform-by-age/gender adoption to the county’s older, rural demographic mix; rounded for planning use