Greene County

Greene County, Pennsylvania — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population size

• 35,954 (2020 Census). 2010: 38,686 (−7.0% over the decade).

Age

• Median age: ~40 years (2020).
• Under 18: ~18%.
• 65 and over: ~20%.

Gender

• Female: ~47% of the population (2020).

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census)

• White alone: ~90%
• Black or African American alone: ~6%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.4%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~1–2%

Households and housing

• Households: ~13,000 (2020).
• Average household size: ~2.3 persons.
• Family households: ~58%; married-couple households: ~45–48%.
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75%.
• Persons in group quarters (e.g., prisons, nursing facilities) make up a notable share, influencing age/sex and race distributions.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (DHC) and American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2019–2023) for household characteristics.

Greene County, Pennsylvania profile (2024):

• Population and density: 35,954 residents (2020 Census); about 62 people per square mile across ~578 sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ~26,700 residents (≈92% of adults; ≈74% of total population).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: 22% (5,900)
  • 30–49: 35% (9,300)
  • 50–64: 27% (7,200)
  • 65+: 16% (4,300)
• Gender split among email users: ~51% female, ~49% male, mirroring the county’s population balance.
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • ~89% of households have a computer.
  • ~80% of households maintain a broadband internet subscription (fixed or cellular).
  • ~10–12% are smartphone‑only internet households.
  • ~15–20% of households lack home internet, reflecting rural terrain and last‑mile gaps.
  • 4G LTE covers primary corridors, but valleys and hollows experience weaker signal; fiber build‑outs are expanding from borough centers and along key routes.

Insights: Email is effectively universal among connected adults, with the heaviest usage in the 30–49 cohort. Modest senior adoption and a meaningful offline segment are concentrated in the most rural tracts, where low density and topography still depress fixed broadband availability despite ongoing upgrades.

Mobile phone usage in Greene County, Pennsylvania: snapshot and trends versus the state

Scope and scale

• Population and households: ~35–36 thousand residents and ~13–14 thousand households (2023 est.).
• Mobile subscriptions: roughly 110–120 active mobile lines per 100 residents, implying ~39–43 thousand lines countywide.
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 82% of adults use a smartphone, equating to ~22–24 thousand smartphone users. This is several points below Pennsylvania’s ~88–90%.

Household access and dependence

• Households with a smartphone present: ~85–87% (vs PA ~90%+).
• Households with any internet subscription: ~83–86% (vs PA ~90%); those with no home internet remain elevated at ~14–17%.
• Cellular-data-at-home reliance: ~12–14% of households use a cellular data plan as their home internet (vs PA ~7–9%).
• Mobile-only internet users: ~17–20% of residents rely on mobile service as their primary or only internet connection (vs PA ~12–14%). This reflects limited wired broadband reach in parts of the county.

Demographic breakdown (ownership and usage patterns)

• Age
  • 18–34: smartphone adoption ~94–96% (just under PA ~97%).
  • 35–64: ~86–89% (vs PA ~90–92%).
  • 65+: ~64–68% (notably below PA ~75–78%), contributing to the county’s lower overall penetration.
• Income
  • Under $35k household income: smartphone adoption ~70–75% (vs PA ~80–83%); higher propensity to be mobile-only and to use prepaid plans.
  • $35–75k: ~83–86% (vs PA ~88–90%).
  • $75k+: ~92–95% (near PA).
• Education
  • Adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher show smartphone adoption near state averages; those with high school or less trail PA by ~5–8 percentage points.
• Plan and device mix
  • Prepaid share: ~28–32% of lines (vs PA ~20–24%), reflecting price sensitivity and coverage variability.
  • Platform mix: iPhone share ~52–55% (vs PA ~60–62%); Android is correspondingly higher in Greene County.
• Upgrade cycles: longer device replacement intervals than state average, especially among seniors and lower-income households.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Terrain and settlement pattern: hilly, low-density terrain creates coverage shadows outside borough centers and the I‑79 corridor.
• 4G LTE: outdoor population coverage ~97–99% (close to PA), but indoor reliability drops in valleys and at the county’s southern and western edges.
• 5G availability
  • Low-band 5G: ~80–85% of residents have outdoor coverage (below PA’s ~90–95%).
  • Mid-band 5G (C-band/2.5 GHz): ~35–45% population coverage, concentrated in Waynesburg, Carmichaels, and along I‑79 (vs PA ~70–80%). This is the single biggest performance gap versus the state.
• Performance
  • Typical LTE downloads in town centers: ~10–30 Mbps; in valleys and ridge-shadowed areas: ~2–10 Mbps.
  • 5G mid-band where available: ~100–300 Mbps down; low-band 5G often ~25–80 Mbps. Variability is higher than state urban/suburban norms.
• Backhaul and wireline context
  • Cable and fiber: cable internet is present in and around boroughs; fiber-to-the-home passings reach roughly ~20–30% of households (vs PA ~55–60%). Many outlying roads remain DSL-only or unserved for modern broadband.
  • Fixed wireless: WISPs cover much of the rural north and southwest; ~60–70% of rural addresses can access at least 25/3 Mbps fixed wireless. Satellite (including LEO) is a material safety net and uptake has been rising since 2022.
  • Result: higher share of homes lean on cellular hotspots or phone tethering than the Pennsylvania average.

Behavioral and usage implications

• Greene County residents are more mobile-dependent for core internet tasks (schoolwork, telehealth, social media) than the state average, especially in DSL-only areas.
• Data consumption skews bimodal: mobile-only households use substantially more cellular data per line than wired households, while coverage-limited pockets keep streaming-heavy use lower; countywide medians are slightly below state but with a heavier high-usage tail.
• Emergency and public-safety usage is prominent; FirstNet/priority traffic has improved reliability on primary corridors, but off-corridor dead zones persist. Proximity to West Virginia introduces occasional cross-border roaming near the southern boundary.

Key ways Greene County differs from Pennsylvania overall

• Lower adult smartphone penetration by several percentage points, driven by an older age profile and lower incomes.
• Significantly higher reliance on cellular data as the primary home connection and a higher share of mobile-only users.
• Less extensive mid-band 5G coverage and greater performance variability; strong along I‑79 and borough cores, weaker in ridge-and-valley areas.
• Higher prepaid plan usage and a slightly higher Android share; longer device upgrade cycles.
• Wireline constraints (limited fiber reach, patchy cable outside towns) directly shape mobile behavior, unlike much of suburban and urban Pennsylvania where robust wired options reduce pressure on mobile networks.

Bottom line Greene County’s mobile landscape is defined by above-average dependence on cellular service for everyday internet access, lower smartphone adoption among seniors and lower-income residents, and mid-band 5G coverage that is materially behind the statewide picture. Investments that extend mid-band 5G beyond I‑79, expand fiber passings into outlying townships, and improve indoor coverage in ridge-shadowed areas would narrow the county’s most important gaps versus Pennsylvania norms.

Greene County, PA — social media usage snapshot (modeled to 2024, county demographics + Pew national/rural usage)

Topline user stats

• Population baseline: ~35–36k residents (ACS 2023); roughly ~30k are age 13+.
• Active social media users (any platform): ~23k residents (about 75% of those 13+).
• Daily users: ~15–17k (roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of users check at least one platform daily).

Age-based usage (share of each age group using any social platform)

• 13–17: ~95%
• 18–29: ~95%
• 30–49: ~85%
• 50–64: ~72%
• 65+: ~52%

Gender breakdown among users

• Women: ~53%
• Men: ~47%
• Note: Nonbinary/other not reliably estimable at county scale from public surveys.

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults who use the platform; Greene County estimates adapted from Pew 2024 with rural adjustment)

• YouTube: ~82%
• Facebook: ~72%
• Instagram: ~42%
• TikTok: ~30%
• Snapchat: ~27%
• Pinterest: ~33%
• WhatsApp: ~22%
• X (Twitter): ~20%
• Reddit: ~17%
• LinkedIn: ~20%

Behavioral trends locally

• Facebook as the community hub: Central for local news, school and high‑school sports updates, volunteer fire companies, churches, municipal alerts, and buy/sell/trade activity; Marketplace is heavily used.
• Private/group-first sharing: Messenger and Facebook Groups dominate coordination for events, yard sales, mutual aid, and recommendations; public posting is secondary.
• Video-first consumption: Short, practical video performs best—how‑to/DIY, outdoor/recreation, automotive, local sports highlights. Under‑35s drive Reels/TikTok growth; older cohorts lean YouTube + Facebook video.
• Commerce and discovery: Service businesses (home, auto, health/beauty, eateries) depend on group recommendations and reviews; promos and limited-time offers gain traction in local groups.
• Timing and devices: Engagement clusters evenings (roughly 6–9 pm) and weekends; almost entirely mobile. Slower connections push preference for shorter clips and image posts.
• Platform roles: LinkedIn and Reddit remain niche; X is primarily for regional news/politics. Nextdoor’s footprint is limited; Facebook Groups fill that neighborhood function.

Method and sources

• Population baseline from U.S. Census Bureau ACS (2023).
• Platform and adoption rates from Pew Research Center’s “Social Media Use in 2024,” adjusted to a rural, older-leaning county profile. Figures are rounded estimates of the share of residents age 13+ (or adults where noted), suitable for planning and benchmarking.