Rockingham County

Rockingham County, Virginia — key demographics

Population size

• 83,757 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Under 5 years: 5.1%
• Under 18 years: 22.3%
• 65 years and over: 21.8%

Gender

• Female: 50.6%
• Male: 49.4%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: 93.4%
• Black or African American alone: 2.1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 0.4%
• Asian alone: 0.7%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 0.1%
• Two or more races: 1.8%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 7.7%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: 86.6%

Household and housing

• Households: 33,068
• Persons per household: 2.62
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: 74.9%
• Housing units: 38,330
• Median household income (in 2022 dollars): $69,519
• Persons in poverty: 9.4%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates; QuickFacts for Rockingham County, VA.

• Scope: Rockingham County, VA (2023 est. pop. ~86,000; ~850 sq mi; ~100 people/sq mi).
• Adult base: ~68,000 residents age 18+ (≈79% of population).
• Estimated email users: 60,000 adults (88% of adults), reflecting near‑universal use among connected residents.
• Age profile of email use:
  • 18–34: ~95% use email; county skews older, so this cohort represents a smaller share of total users than urban Virginia.
  • 35–64: ~92% use email; largest share of county email users.
  • 65+: ~82% use email; adoption is lower but growing.
• Gender split: County is ~51% female; email usage is effectively parity by gender, yielding ~49% male / 51% female among users.
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~86% of households have a broadband subscription; ~92% have a computer (ACS 2022), both up materially since 2017.
  • Access and speeds are strongest along the I‑81/US‑33 corridors and near Harrisonburg; more remote tracts show thinner wireline coverage and greater reliance on mobile hotspots.
• Local density/connectivity facts: Low settlement density (~100/sq mi) raises last‑mile costs, slowing fiber build‑outs versus the Virginia average, but overall connectivity is high enough that email reaches the vast majority of adult residents.

Mobile phone usage in Rockingham County, Virginia: what’s different from the state

Baseline context

• Population: 83,757 (2020 Census). Households: ~32,000 (ACS).
• Settlement pattern: largely rural/agricultural with population concentrated along the I‑81 corridor (Bridgewater–Dayton–Mt. Crawford) and in/around towns like Elkton, Broadway/Timberville, and Grottoes. The independent city of Harrisonburg is adjacent but not part of the county.

User estimates (derived from Census age mix, ACS device/Internet tables, and recent Pew adoption rates, scaled for rural counties)

• Total mobile phone users (any mobile device): approximately 64,000–68,000 county residents.
• Smartphone users: approximately 60,000–62,000.
• Feature‑phone-only users: roughly 3,000–5,000, concentrated among older adults and residents in fringe coverage zones.
• Mobile‑only Internet households (no fixed broadband, rely on cellular data/hotspots): on the order of 6,000–7,000 households (about one in five), higher than Virginia’s average due to rural last‑mile gaps.
• Prepaid/mobile‑budget plan users: meaningfully above the statewide mix, driven by price sensitivity and variable fixed‑broadband availability outside towns.

Demographic breakdown of usage

• Age: Adoption is near‑universal among working‑age adults, but 65+ smartphone adoption is several points lower than the Virginia average. Seniors are more likely to carry basic/feature phones or share family devices, especially in areas with marginal signal.
• Income: Lower‑income households show higher mobile‑only Internet reliance than the state average. Hotspotting for school/work is common where DSL or cable is unavailable or unreliable.
• Language/ethnicity: Hispanic households (notably in agriculture and food processing) show high smartphone uptake and above‑average reliance on prepaid and mobile‑only Internet compared with the county overall, consistent with statewide patterns for mobile dependence but more pronounced locally.
• Students: Bridgewater College and commuters to Harrisonburg campuses drive dense smartphone and 5G use around college/town cores, but this effect is geographically limited compared with Virginia’s larger metro university hubs.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what stands out locally)

• Carrier presence: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile all serve the county. 5G is available along I‑81, in/around Bridgewater, Dayton, Mt. Crawford, Elkton (US‑33 corridor), Broadway/Timberville (US‑42), and Grottoes (US‑340). Coverage thins in mountain valleys and the George Washington National Forest side of the county.
• Performance pattern: Populated corridors show strong LTE/5G with carrier aggregation; terrain‑shielded hollows and ridge‑line roads exhibit dead zones and fallback to 3G-sunset replacement bands or satellite as a last resort. This urban–rural performance gap is wider than the statewide norm.
• Tower density: Fewer macro sites per square mile than Virginia’s metro counties; where demand peaks (I‑81 interchanges, town centers), sectors are modernized with mid‑band 5G, while fringe areas rely on lower‑band spectrum for reach. As a result, land‑area 5G coverage is notably below the statewide share even if population‑coverage along corridors is comparable.
• Backhaul and fiber: Fiber presence is expanding from town centers and utility routes; VATI/ARPA‑supported builds and provider expansions (e.g., Lumos, Shentel/Glo Fiber in and around population centers) are reducing unserved pockets. Nonetheless, many outlying roads still lack competitive fixed broadband, sustaining higher mobile‑only dependence than Virginia overall.
• Alternatives: Fixed‑wireless (WISP) and satellite (including Starlink) fill gaps on ridgelines and remote farms; households using these often still keep robust mobile plans for redundancy, a pattern more common here than statewide.

How Rockingham differs from Virginia overall

• Slightly lower adult smartphone penetration and a larger feature‑phone cohort, driven by an older age profile and rural coverage constraints.
• Higher share of mobile‑only Internet households due to last‑mile fixed‑broadband gaps, despite improving fiber footprints in towns.
• Greater reliance on prepaid/value plans and hotspotting outside municipal cores.
• 5G access is strong where people cluster but uneven by land area; the corridor‑centric pattern and terrain‑related dead zones are more pronounced than in most Virginia counties.
• Device replacement cycles trend longer than the state average, reflecting price sensitivity and weaker retail carrier presence outside Harrisonburg/town areas.

Implications

• Network investments that add mid‑band 5G sectors and small cells along secondary corridors (US‑33, US‑42, US‑340) and valley communities will yield outsized improvements versus statewide averages.
• Continued fiber backhaul and fixed‑broadband builds should reduce mobile‑only dependence over the next 2–3 years; until then, demand for higher‑cap cellular data allowances and reliable voice coverage in fringe areas will remain elevated compared with Virginia as a whole.

Social media usage in Rockingham County, VA (2025 snapshot)

Overall usage

• Adults using at least one social platform: ≈80–85% (county estimate based on age‑weighted national data)
• Daily social media users: ≈70% of adults
• Median platforms used per adult: 3

Most‑used platforms (adult reach, county estimates)

• YouTube: 80%
• Facebook: 70%
• Instagram: 40%
• TikTok: 27–30%
• Pinterest: 32–35%
• Snapchat: 20–22%
• LinkedIn: 27–30%
• X (Twitter): 19–22%
• WhatsApp: 17–20%
• Nextdoor: 18–20% (higher in suburban neighborhoods)

Age‑group patterns (share using each platform)

• Teens 13–17: YouTube ~95%, TikTok ~65–67%, Instagram ~60–62%, Snapchat ~58–60%, Facebook ~30–33%
• Ages 18–29: YouTube ~90%+, Instagram ~75–78%, Snapchat ~60–65%, TikTok ~60–62%, Facebook ~65–67%
• Ages 30–49: YouTube ~90%, Facebook ~75–77%, Instagram ~55%, TikTok ~35–40%, LinkedIn ~40–46%
• Ages 50–64: YouTube ~80–83%, Facebook ~70–73%, Instagram ~28–32%, TikTok ~22–25%
• Ages 65+: YouTube ~58–62%, Facebook ~48–52%, Instagram ~12–18%, TikTok ~8–12%

Gender breakdown (adult usage tendencies)

• Women: higher on Facebook (72–75%), Instagram (40–45%), Pinterest (45–50%), TikTok (32–35%)
• Men: higher on YouTube (80–85%), X/Twitter (22–25%), Reddit (12–18%), LinkedIn (28–32%)
• Overall gender gap is widest on Pinterest (women >> men) and Reddit (men >> women)

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Facebook as the community hub: heavy use of Groups for schools, churches, youth sports, local government updates, buy/sell/trade, farm/rural interests; Marketplace is a primary channel for vehicles, equipment, livestock, and furniture.
• Video first: short‑form video (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) drives reach for local businesses, events, and outdoor/recreation content; how‑to and “day‑in‑the‑life” farm and small‑business clips perform well.
• Event‑driven spikes: county fair, high‑school sports, hunting seasons, festivals, and weather events trigger surges in Facebook and YouTube engagement; official pages (Sheriff, VDOT, schools, emergency management) see rapid amplification via shares.
• Suburban/neighborhood coordination: Nextdoor and Facebook Neighborhoods used for contractor recommendations, safety notices, and lost‑and‑found; evening and weekend posts get the best response.
• Younger audiences split attention: 18–29s lean Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok for messaging and entertainment; cross‑posting Reels to Facebook extends reach to older family networks.
• Commerce and lead gen: Facebook/Instagram drive inquiries for real estate, home services, auto, and ag‑adjacent businesses; Pinterest contributes upstream discovery for home/DIY; LinkedIn is niche but effective for hiring and B2B in manufacturing, health care, and education.
• Messaging ecosystems: Messenger dominates locally; WhatsApp use is concentrated in multilingual and cross‑border family networks.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are 2024–2025 estimates derived by applying Pew Research Center’s latest U.S. platform‑usage rates by age and gender to Rockingham County’s older‑skewed age mix (ACS). Limited county‑level surveying means platform percentages are modeled but directionally reliable for planning.