On Sunday 20 September 2026, the New Materials roundtable brought together companies working in floating construction, biomaterials, marina design and construction, marina cleaning, wood and timber, and related marine infrastructure solutions. The discussion explored which materials are used in marina infrastructure today, which alternatives are being developed, what limits them, and how regulation, durability, cost, transport and climate shape material choices.
1. Recycled materials are already in the water
One participant described a recently developed dock solution with significant recycled content: recycled aluminium, recycled polyethylene for the floats, recycled polystyrene inside the floats, and recycled or bio-based decking. According to the participant, this approach could reduce carbon emissions by approximately 50% on a full marina installation, and a life-cycle assessment had been carried out with a third party.
The same company was also looking at lower-carbon concrete compositions, although this was described as particularly difficult in marine and saltwater environments.
2. EPS: widely used, hard to replace
A large part of the discussion focused on the expanded polystyrene (EPS) used inside floating structures. Participants explained that EPS is widely used because it absorbs very little water and keeps a floating structure from sinking if its outer protection is damaged.
They also highlighted its drawbacks: EPS can be perceived negatively from an environmental point of view, damaged EPS can disperse into the water, alternatives are limited, and current standards are built around materials such as EPS. Polyurethane was mentioned as another possible material, but one participant said it is forbidden in this application, which leaves EPS as the main practical solution.
3. Regulation as a barrier to innovation
Participants repeatedly said that regulation and standards can make it difficult to introduce alternative materials. A company may develop a new solution and still be unable to use it, because existing marina construction standards are based on established materials. Regulation was therefore identified as one of the main obstacles to material innovation, and participants mentioned discussions with organisations and authorities to see whether standards could evolve.
4. Alternatives under study
Several possible alternatives to EPS were discussed. ReFlo was mentioned as developing a 100% concrete float. A Finnish startup was mentioned as working with recycled wind turbine blades: very stiff and potentially usable as floating elements, although their load-bearing capacity was said to be limited. This technology is still being studied through smaller projects and pilot work.
A participant from MyScene introduced mycelium-based foam as a potential bio-based material. It has not yet been tested in a marina environment. Possible uses include insulation, acoustic materials, decorative elements, a core material inside another structure and, if appropriately protected, floating applications. The material itself is neither waterproof nor load-bearing, so it would need to be integrated within another system.
MyScene described a test house developed in Tallinn with the Estonian Academy of Arts and architects, designed as a modular structure that can be dismantled. The company has also tested mycelium as insulation against mineral wool and wood fibre, with benefits in thermal insulation, heat storage capacity and acoustic performance. It does not yet have a marina-specific pilot and is interested in applications beyond hotels, restaurants and interiors.
5. Concrete: essential, but heavy and carbon-intensive
Participants recognised concrete as an important material in marine environments, but also discussed its limits: a high carbon footprint linked to cement production, the EPS used inside some floating concrete structures, heavy weight, transport, crane requirements and the resulting CAPEX.
One participant noted that extending the lifespan of concrete often means using stronger, heavier concrete, which can further increase its carbon footprint. Solutions that work in ordinary construction do not necessarily perform well when permanently submerged in seawater.
6. Sustainability is also modularity, reuse and transport
A key point was that sustainability is not only about the material itself. Marina demand changes over time: fifteen or twenty years ago, today’s level of demand for catamarans had not necessarily been anticipated. A marina built for one market may need major changes fifteen years later. Modularity is therefore an important part of sustainability, because infrastructure should ideally be reusable or reconfigurable when berth layouts or market demand change.
One floating-construction company described projects where existing marina elements were reused rather than discarded, a form of upcycling. The company said it was increasingly using concrete instead of steel in some applications and was developing different structural solutions.
Transport was identified as a significant part of the environmental and financial impact of materials: the weight of concrete, truck and marine transport, distances and logistics. Using a local material can be one way to reduce impact, and the timber discussion later stressed using rail rather than trucks where possible and avoiding unnecessary long-distance transport.
7. Timber: the right wood for the right climate
A substantial part of the discussion focused on wood, which one participant described as a new opportunity for a company that had traditionally worked with timber in other sectors. Species discussed included teak, plantation teak, tropical woods, larch, oak, ipê, spruce and beech, as well as thermally modified wood and engineered timber.
On teak, the participant distinguished between original teak, plantation teak and illegally sourced timber, referring to sanctions affecting Myanmar/Burma teak and to the importance of legally sourced, certified wood. The choice should not automatically be teak: other species may be better suited depending on the application.
The same wood cannot be used everywhere. Finland, Singapore, Australia and the Middle East; seawater, lake water and chlorine; extreme cold and heat, termites, humidity and salt all call for different choices. A floating-construction company confirmed that it regularly encounters problems when a material that performs well in one environment is used in another.
Wood was also described as a material that can be reused through several cycles, used first in one application and then in another, with examples ranging from buildings, hotels, schools and apartments to wind turbines and waterfront environments.
Durability was discussed at length. Some clients now request 30- to 50-year warranties for timber. One company therefore offers clients several options with different lifespans and maintenance needs: a cheaper material lasting about five years, materials that need annual oiling or maintenance, and more expensive materials designed to last significantly longer.
8. Testing and certification
A concrete example showed how combined conditions can cause unexpected failures. Heated mats sourced from the United States, previously used on oil rigs and known for withstanding harsh environments, failed within two days next to chlorinated pool water. Several new versions were tested, but the supplier could not find a suitable solution.
Certification, such as slip-resistance certificates for materials used around swimming pools, was also raised as a major issue that can limit or slow down the adoption of new products. One participant argued, however, that companies cannot wait for every possible certification before starting to develop and test a new material.
9. Sustainability versus cost
Participants repeatedly returned to the tension between sustainability and cost: is the priority cost or environmental impact, are clients prepared to pay more for sustainable materials, and how should long-term performance be weighed? One participant argued that some sustainable solutions cost more initially, but that costs should be considered over 10 to 15 years rather than only at the point of purchase.
10. Key takeaways
Several points stood out during the discussion:
-
no replacement for EPS is yet considered proven for all marina applications;
-
standards themselves can prevent the adoption of innovative solutions;
-
recycled materials are already being integrated into pontoons and marina infrastructure;
-
modularity is an important part of sustainability;
-
recycled wind turbine blades are being investigated as a floating material;
-
mycelium-based materials are being explored as bio-based insulation and core materials, but have not yet been tested in marinas;
-
wood can suit marine environments, provided the species matches the climate and use;
-
durability, maintenance, transport and local sourcing all determine whether a material is genuinely suitable;
-
a solution that works in one environment may fail rapidly in another.
11. Next steps
Follow-up directions mentioned included continued development of lower-carbon dock materials, further work on alternatives to EPS, discussions with industry organisations and regulators about standards, testing recycled wind turbine blades in small floating projects, exploring mycelium as a core or insulation material, developing marina pilot applications for MyScene, continued research into timber solutions for different marine climates, and offering clients material options based on lifespan, price and maintenance.
The discussion closed on the idea of a new sustainable floating solution. Asked what an ideal marine project using new materials might be, the MyScene representative said it would be interesting to create something that floats, given the lack of alternatives to EPS currently available. Participants exchanged business cards and invited further discussions around samples, pilots and possible collaborations.
Source: Smart Marina Connect. The M3 perspective above provides additional professional analysis.