The construction industry is one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. In response, sustainable construction practices using environmentally friendly, low-impact materials are gaining prominence, in line with recent EU regulations. Among bio‑based materials, cork stands out for its sustainability and versatility. However, public awareness of its potential in construction remains poorly understood. This study presents the results of a public survey (n = 237) conducted across four Portuguese cities located in different regions of the country. We assessed public awareness of cork as a sustainable building material and perceptions of the socioecological importance of cork oak land use systems, while examining how respondents’ demographic factors influence awareness levels. While most respondents (70%) were familiar with common construction materials in Portugal, only 5% identified cork as a potential material for exterior façades. Most respondents (90%) perceived cork as a sustainable material, mainly for environmental reasons. Younger individuals (18−34 years old) consistently exhibited the lowest awareness, whereas older respondents (≥55 years) showed the highest. Regional contrasts were also observed, with Setúbal exhibiting the lowest awareness and Coimbra and Aveiro showing the highest. Our findings highlight a gap in public awareness of cork’s potential for exterior façades and the broader socioecological importance of cork oak land use systems, underscoring the need for targeted communication and education strategies. Although grounded in Portugal, the insights may inform broader initiatives to integrate locally sourced bio‑based materials into sustainable construction strategies and public awareness efforts.

1.         IPCC. Buildings. In: Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2023. pp. 953–1048. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.011

2.         Sakthibala RK, Vasanthi P, Hariharasudhan C, et al. A critical review on recycling and reuse of construction and demolition waste materials. Cleaner Waste Systems. 2025; 12: 100375. doi: 10.1016/j.clwas.2025.100375

3.         Meng T, Shan X, Ren Z, et al. Analysis of influencing factors on solid waste generation of public buildings in tropical monsoon climate region. Buildings. 2024; 14(2): 513. doi: 10.3390/buildings14020513

4.         Sandanayake MS. Environmental impacts of construction in building industry—A review of knowledge advances, gaps and future directions. Knowledge. 2022; 2(1): 139–156. doi: 10.3390/knowledge2010008

5.         Chen L, Huang L, Hua J, et al. Green construction for low-carbon cities: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 2023; 21(3): 1627–1657. doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01544-4

6.         Aslani A, Hachem-Vermette C, Zahedi R. Environmental impact assessment and potentials of material efficiency using by-products and waste materials. Construction and Building Materials. 2023; 378: 131197. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131197

7.         EU. The greening of the EU construction sector - Skills intelligence data insight. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training; 2023.

8.         Hamilton I, Kennard H, Rapf O, et al. Global status report for buildings and construction. Available online: https://securesustain.org/report/2023-global-status-report-for-buildings-and-construction/ (Accessed on 2 June 2025).

9.         Firoozi AA, Firoozi AA, Oyejobi DO, et al. Emerging trends in sustainable building materials: Technological innovations, enhanced performance, and future directions. Results in Engineering. 2024; 24: 103521. doi: 10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103521

10.      Shufrin I, Pasternak E, Dyskin A. Environmentally friendly smart construction—Review of recent developments and opportunities. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(23): 12891. doi: 10.3390/app132312891

11.      Manoharan A, Raja R, Sharma H, et al. Recent advances in bio-based concrete materials: A critical in-depth review. In: reviews and advances in functional materials. World Scientific; 2025. pp. 449–488. doi: 10.1142/9789819806409_0010

12.      Dhir RK. Sustainable construction materials: Recycled aggregates. Elsevier Science & Technology; 2019.

13.      Bourbia S, Kazeoui H, Belarbi R. A review on recent research on bio-based building materials and their applications. Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2023; 12(2): 117–139. doi: 10.1007/s40243-023-00234-7

14.      Malanho S, Veiga R, Farinha CB. Global performance of sustainable thermal insulating systems with cork for building facades. Buildings. 2021; 11(3): 83. doi: 10.3390/buildings11030083

15.      Salomé R, Cardoso A. Beyond resources: Innovative use of mediterranean materials for sustainable design. In: Modern Technologies in Ergonomics and Workplace Safety. CRC Press; 2025.

16.      Yay Ö, Hasanzadeh M, Diltemiz SF, et al. Thermal insulation with cork-based materials. In: Green Energy and Technology. Springer Science + Business Media; 2024. pp. 3–15. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-51564-4_2

17.      Slavova G, Doneva Y. Cork as a renewable and recyclable material and the possibility to use a circular production model for various cork products. In: Dudik R, ed. Current Trends and Challenges for Forest-Based Sector: Carbon Neutrality and Bioeconomy (WoodEMA). WoodEMA, i.a.; 2023:33-38

18.      Yadav M, Agarwal M. Biobased building materials for sustainable future: An overview. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021; 43: 2895–2902. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.165

19.      Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, et al. Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2011; 9(5): 278–286. doi: 10.1890/100084

20.      Eastburn DJ, O’Geen AT, Tate KW, et al. Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12(3): e0166595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166595

21.      von Essen M, do Rosário I T, Santos-Reis M, et al. Valuing and mapping cork and carbon across land use scenarios in a Portuguese montado landscape. PLOS ONE. 2019; 14(3): e0212174. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212174

22.      Lopes-Fernandes M, Martínez-Fernández E, Alves R, et al. Cork oak woodlands and decline: A social-ecological review and future transdisciplinary approaches. Agroforestry Systems. 2024; 98(6): 1927–1944. doi: 10.1007/s10457-024-00999-4

23.      Adamo G, Willis M. Conceptual integration for social-ecological systems. In: Research Challenges in Information Science. Spring; 2022. pp. 321–337. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-05760-1_19

24.      Pinto-Correia T, Ribeiro N, Sá-Sousa P. Introducing the Montado, the cork and holm oak agroforestry system of Southern Portugal. Agroforestry Systems. 2011; 82(2): 99–104. doi: 10.1007/s10457-011-9388-1

25.      Berge B. Ecology of Building Materials. Routledge; 2007. doi: 10.4324/9780080504988

26.      Pereira H. The rationale behind cork properties: A Review of Structure and Chemistry. BioResources. 2015; 10(3). doi: 10.15376/biores.10.3.pereira

27.      Pereira H. Cork: Biology, Production and Uses. Elsevier Science; 2007.

28.      Knapic S, Oliveira V, Machado JS, et al. Cork as a building material: A review. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products. 2016; 74(6): 775–791. doi: 10.1007/s00107-016-1076-4

29.      Ana Carina P, Han B, Helena P, et al. Cork and sustainability: Discussing the sustainable use of the material from a design perspective. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Science). 2012; 17(3): 360–363. doi: 10.1007/s12204-012-1287-8

30.      Conde MC. The uses of cork in architecture from the late Middle Ages to the 15th century (Portuguese). In: Sousa Melo A, Carmo Ribeiro M. História Da Construção: Os Materiais. CITCEM; 2012. pp. 221–241.

31.      Wilton O, Howland MB. Cork. Construction History. 2020; 35(1): 1–22. doi: 10.4324/9780429505058-8

32.      García-Pereda I, Pesoa Marcilla M. The Use of Cork in Lisbon Architecture in the 1940s: Innovation, Institution and Application (Spanish). Cadernos Do Arquivo Municipal. 2021; 16: 33–46. doi: 10.48751/CAM-2021-1645

33.      European Patent Office. Espacenet: Worldwide patent search. European Patent Office; 2025.

34.      Miranda I, Pereira H. Cork Façades as an Innovative and Sustainable Approach in Architecture: A Review of Cork Materials, Properties and Case Studies. Materials. 2024; 17(17): 4414. doi: 10.3390/ma17174414

35.      Sierra-Pérez J, Boschmonart-Rives J, Gabarrell X. Production and trade analysis in the Iberian cork sector: Economic characterization of a forest industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2015; 98: 55–66. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.011

36.      CEGEA. The Cork Industry: Characteristics, Technological Diagnosis and Strategy (Portuguese). CEGEA; 2023.

37.      Miranda I, Lourenço A, Simões R, et al. Insights into cork weathering regarding colour, chemical and cellular changes in view of outdoor applications. PLOS ONE. 2024; 19(4): e0301384. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301384

38.      Hildebrandt J, Hagemann N, Thrän D. The contribution of wood-based construction materials for leveraging a low carbon building sector in Europe. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2017; 34: 405–418. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.06.013

39.      Chan APC, Darko A, Ameyaw EE. Strategies for promoting green building technologies adoption in the construction industry—An international study. Sustainability. 2017; 9(6): 969. doi: 10.3390/su9060969

40.      Zsóka Á, Szerényi ZM, Széchy A, et al. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013; 48: 126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.030

41.      Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50(2): 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

42.      Strappini F, Fagioli S, Mastandrea S, et al. Sustainable materials: A linking bridge between material perception, affordance, and aesthetics. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024; 14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1307467

43.      Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, et al. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal Of Business Research. 2003; 56(6): 465–480. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7

44.      Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. North American Ed. Sage Publications; 2024.

45.      Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of statistical software, 2008, 25: 1–18. doi: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01

46.      Sandak A, Sandak J, Brzezicki M, et al. Bio-based building skin. Springer Singapore; 2019. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-3747-5

47.      Sørensen IH, Torralba M, Muñoz-Rojas J, et al. Embedding plural values in value chains to enhance sustainability in the management of cork oak landscapes. Landscape Ecology. 2023; 38(12): 3569–3587. doi: 10.1007/s10980-023-01730-x

48.      do Rosário IT, Rebelo R, Caser U, et al. Valuation of ecosystem services by stakeholders operating at different levels: insights from the Portuguese cultural montado landscape. Regional Environmental Change. 2019; 19(8): 2173–2185. doi: 10.1007/s10113-019-01527-2

49.      Stavi I, Thevs N, Welp M, et al. Provisioning ecosystem services related with oak (Quercus) systems: A review of challenges and opportunities. Agroforestry Systems. 2022; 96(2): 293–313. doi: 10.1007/s10457-021-00718-3

50.      Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science (1979). 2009; 325: 419–422. doi: 10.5055/jem.2013.0130

51.      Kay S, Crous-Duran J, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, et al. Spatial similarities between European agroforestry systems and ecosystem services at the landscape scale. Agroforestry Systems. 2017; 92(4): 1075–1089. doi: 10.1007/s10457-017-0132-3

52.      Plieninger T, Flinzberger L, Hetman M, et al. Dehesas as high nature value farming systems: A social-ecological synthesis of drivers, pressures, state, impacts, and responses. Ecology and Society. 2021; 26(3). doi: 10.5751/es-12647-260323

53.      Chapin FS, Carpenter SR, Kofinas GP, et al. Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2010; 25(4): 241–249. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008

54.      Acha A, Newing HS. Cork Oak Landscapes, promised or compromised lands? a case study of a traditional cultural landscape in southern spain. Human Ecology. 2015; 43(4): 601–611. doi: 10.1007/s10745-015-9768-7

55.      R Rajendra P, Mohanasundaram T, Shanthi D, et al. Smart and sustainable building materials: Empirical examination of consumer adoption intentions in Bangalore. The fifth scientific conference for electrical engineering techniques research (EETR2024). 2024; 3232: 020006. doi: 10.1063/5.0235938

56.      Wilkes S, Wongsriruksa S, Howes P, et al. Design tools for interdisciplinary translation of material experiences. Materials & Design. 2016; 90: 1228–1237. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.04.013

57.      West S, Haider LJ, Masterson V, et al. Stewardship, care and relational values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2018; 35: 30–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.008

58.      Pedgley O. Desirable Imperfection in Product Materials. Proceedings of DRS2014 International Conference: Design’s Big Debates; 2014. doi: 10.21606/drs.2014.97

59.      Nastos G, Mitoula R, Theodoropoulou E, et al. Impact of environmental education on sustainable development, environmental consciousness and pro-environmental behaviour. Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment; 2025. doi: 10.13052/spee1048-5236.4441

60.      Aminrad Z, Zakaria SZB, Hadi AS. Influence of age and level of education on environmental awareness and attitude: case study on iranian students in malaysian universities. The Social Sciences. 2011; 6(1): 15–19. doi: 10.3923/sscience.2011.15.19

61.      Penrod C, Wheeler I, Knowles R. Preparing youth for global challenges: can an open classroom climate prepare students for climate action? Environmental Education Research. 2025; 31(12): 2421–2444. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2416546

62.      Arslan N, Sisman FN. The effects of ‘The Don’t Waste! – Recycle Programme’ on waste management among preschool children: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Health Education Journal. 2025; 84(2): 159–173. doi: 10.1177/00178969251314312

63.      O’Sullivan KC, Howden-Chapman P, Sim D, et al. Cool? Young people investigate living in cold housing and fuel poverty. A mixed methods action research study. SSM - Population Health. 2017; 3: 66–74. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.12.006

64.      Berglund T, Gericke N. Exploring the role of the economy in young adults’ understanding of sustainable development. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8): 2738. doi: 10.3390/su10082738

65.      Phung Q, Erdogan B, Nielsen Y. Influence of sustainability adoption on the success of construction projects. Building Research & Information. 2025: 1–14. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2025.2585044

66.      Burgos Espinoza II, García Alcaraz JL, Gil López AJ, et al. Achieving behavioral intention to renewable energy through perceived costs and benefits and environmental concern. Sustainable Futures. 2024; 8: 100319. doi: 10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100319

67.      Ernest K, Samuel AS, Agyemang DY, et al. Identification of factors influencing the pricing of sustainable construction materials in developing countries: views of Ghanaian quantity surveyors. International Journal of Construction Management. 2020; 22(11): 2144–2153. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1768462

68.      Bui T, Domingo N, Le A. A conceptual framework for selecting sustainable construction materials. Spring; 2025. pp. 44–51. doi: 10.1007/978-981-96-4051-5_5

69.      Elyamany A, Daoud AO. Cost-effectiveness and market adoption of sustainable building materials: an analysis of comparative economic viability and barriers to industry integration. Spring; 2025. pp. 143–168. doi: 10.1007/978-981-95-1645-2_7

70.      Fletcher CA, Aureli S, Foschi E, et al. Implications of consumer orientation towards environmental sustainability on the uptake of bio-based and biodegradable plastics. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability. 2024; 7: 100246. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2024.100246

71.      Moura B, Ramos da Silva T, Soares N, et al. Eco-efficiency of concrete sandwich panels with different insulation core materials. Sustainability. 2025; 17(4): 1687. doi: 10.3390/su17041687

72.      Demertzi M, Sierra-Pérez J, Paulo JA, et al. Environmental performance of expanded cork slab and granules through life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 145: 294–302. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.071

73.      Sierra-Pérez J, García-Pérez S, Blanc S, et al. The use of forest-based materials for the efficient energy of cities: Environmental and economic implications of cork as insulation material. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2018; 37: 628–636. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.008

74.      Omer MAB, Noguchi T. A conceptual framework for understanding the contribution of building materials in the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Sustainable Cities and Society. 2020; 52: 101869. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101869

75.      Ogunmakinde OE, Egbelakin T, Sher W. Contributions of the circular economy to the UN sustainable development goals through sustainable construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2022; 178: 106023. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106023

76.      European Council and Council of the European Union. Fit for 55. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fit-for-55/ (accessed on 5 June 2025).

77.      Novais RM, Carvalheiras J, Senff L, et al. Multifunctional cork – alkali-activated fly ash composites: A sustainable material to enhance buildings’ energy and acoustic performance. Energy and Buildings. 2020; 210: 109739. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109739

78.      Yadav M, Singhal I. Sustainable construction: the use of cork material in the building industry. Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2024; 13(3): 375–383. doi: 10.1007/s40243-024-00270-x

79.      Barreca F, Cardinali GD, Fichera CR, et al. Utilization of cork residues for high performance walls in green buildings. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 2018; 20(1): 47–55.

80.      BBevilacqua P, Bruno R, Arcuri N. Performance of dry-assembled wooden walls with bio-PCM. Advances in Bio-Based Materials for Construction and Energy Efficiency. 2025: 539–564. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-443-32800-8.00002-0

81.      Al Zohbi G, Askar S A, Kumar A, et al. Sustainable building materials for Eco-friendly construction. AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing LLC. 2024; 3217(1): 040005. doi: 10.1063/5.0234594

82.      Sierra-Pérez J, López-Forniés I, Boschmonart-Rives J, et al. Introducing eco-ideation and creativity techniques to increase and diversify the applications of eco-materials: The case of cork in the building sector. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; 137: 606–616. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.121

83.      Mestre A. A design action intervention approach in the cork industry towards sustainable product innovation. Journal of Design Research. 2015; 13(2): 185. doi: 10.1504/JDR.2015.069767

84.      Gellert R. Natural fibre and fibre composite materials for insulation in buildings. In: Materials for Energy Efficiency and Thermal Comfort in Buildings. Elsevier; 2010. pp. 229–256. doi: 10.1533/9781845699277.2.229

85.      Gil L. Environmental, sustainability and ecological aspects of cork products for building. Ciência & Tecnologia de Materiais. 2011; 23(1–2): 87–90.

86.      Jamal M, Szefler A, Kelly C, et al. Commercial and household food waste separation behaviour and the role of Local Authority: a case study. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture. 2019; 8(S1): 281–290. doi: 10.1007/s40093-019-00300-z

87.      Ryan-Fogarty Y, O’Regan B, Moles R. Greening healthcare: systematic implementation of environmental programmes in a university teaching hospital. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; 126: 248–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.079

88.      Žalėnienė I, Pereira P. Higher Education for Sustainability: A global perspective. Geography and Sustainability. 2021; 2(2): 99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.geosus.2021.05.001

89.      Ayodele TO, Ogunbayo OT. Perception of sustainable construction among Nigerian university students: a case study analysis. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 2025; 27(3): 673–692. doi: 10.1108/ijshe-05-2024-0307

90.      Singh SS, Kumar S, Kishor A, et al. Advancing Sustainability through social media: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing. 2025; 10(6): 1128–1146. doi: 10.1109/TSUSC.2025.3591527

91.      Kadir ZA, Jalil SA. Smart cities and sustainability awareness: using animated infographics to drive sustainable development. In: Technology for Societal Transformation. Springer Nature Singapore; 2025. pp. 283–296. doi: 10.1007/978-981-96-1721-0_18

92.      Del Moral Pérez ME, Bellver Moreno MC, López-Bouzas N, et al. Estrategias audiovisuales proambientales de mayor impacto educomunicador para la audiencia juvenil. Observatorio (OBS*). 2023; 17(3). doi: 10.15847/obsobs17320232269

93.      DARI L. Relancer une activité locale par les stratégies collectives: le cas de la filière liège en Corse. Revue Forestière Française. 2013; (2). doi: 10.4267/2042/51602

94.      Petrović S. European Standards and Market Placement Rules for Cork Flooring in the EU. In: WoodEMA 2025-Wood for the future: Integrating sustainability across industries. WoodEMA, i.a.; 2025. pp. 489–496.

95.      Novitski BJ. Rapidly renewable materials’ complex calculus. ENR (Engineering News-Record). 2008; 260(14): 55–59.

96.      Moshood TD, Rotimi JO, Shahzad W. Enhancing sustainability considerations in construction industry projects. Environ Dev Sustain. 2024; 27(12): 29287–29313. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04946-2