Blazing heat, prolonged drought and heavy downpours: Spain’s chaotic weather has made tourists think twice about visiting the Mediterranean country in 2024.

With temperatures soaring to 40°C in some places, the lure of sunshine has started to become a deterrent.

The other half of the ‘sol y playa’ tourism model is also at risk as the climate changes – Spain’s beaches are starting to disappear due to rising sea levels and extreme weather.

“We observed that there are many beaches in Spain already affected by erosion, particularly when there are strong waves during winter storms,” says Markus Donat, who co-leads the Climate Variability and Change Group within Barcelona Supercomputing Center’s (BSC) Earth Sciences Department.

During storms at Easter, some Barcelona beaches faced unprecedented sand loss of up to 25 metres in width.

Experts warn that this could become a worrying trend – with potentially devastating impacts on Spain’s thriving tourism industry.

Why are Spain’s beaches disappearing?

Climate change is expected to accelerate the frequency and violence of storms in the future.

“The biggest problem is the greater frequency of maritime storms, whose waves affect the first line of the coast and cause huge damage to beaches and coastal facilities, such as marinas and promenades,” explains Jorge Olcina, professor of geography at the University of Alicante.

This could lead to the beaches shrinking, with a loss of the usable sand available for holidaymakers.

“This problem requires significant economic investments every three or four years to repair the beaches and promenades,” says Jorge.

The Spanish government has said for decades that the country’s coastline suffers from the “generalised process of coastal regression”, and has invested millions into replacing sand on degraded beaches. But in the long term, it warns it will not be possible to keep up with requests from all the municipalities that request such help.

And it’s far from over. “Some conservative models assume that the sea level will rise from half a metre to one metre by the end of the century,” says Markus. “However, these estimates do not include some factors that are not well understood – for example, the impact of the melting ice of the Antarctic. So this could increase predicted increases substantially.”

Which Spanish beaches are most vulnerable to coastal erosion?

Some Spanish regions are more vulnerable than others – among them, Catalonia.

Across northeastern Spain, rising sea levels and winter storms have been eating away at the shoreline. A 2017 report by the regional government suggests that 164 km of the region’s coastline – out of a total of 218 km studied – is at high or very high risk of erosion. Half of the beaches are expected to “deteriorate”.

In Barcelona, whose artificial beaches were installed 30 years ago when the city was hosting the 1992 Olympic Games, the situation is even more critical.

Eight out of nine beaches are at high risk from sea storms. The city already warns that some could disappear entirely.

“Sant Sebastià could almost disappear in the worst-case scenarios, while the others could suffer reductions of between 30 per cent and 46 per cent,” Barcelona City Hall’s 2018-2030 Climate Plan reads.

Of the 700,000 cubic metres of sand sent by the Spanish government to the coast of Barcelona province in 2010, 70 per cent has since disappeared. The city estimates that 30,000 cubic metres of sand are washed away every year.

Looking ahead, Barcelona has gathered a group of experts to study the future of the beaches. In the meantime, the practice of replacing sand is increasingly being seen as a waste of money and damaging to the environment.

How will coastal erosion impact tourism in Spain?

Coastal erosion could have alarming consequences for Spanish tourism, which today accounts for nearly 13 per cent of both GDP and employment in Spain, and is heavily dependent on beaches.

The European Travel Commission (ETC) already reported a 10 per cent decrease in tourist frequency in the Mediterranean in 2023 compared to the previous year, due to climate change and extreme weather events.

And Spain is set to be one of the most severely impacted EU countries going forward, according to a report on the ‘Regional impact of climate change on European tourism demand’ published by the European Commission last year.

In a scenario of 3°C warming from pre-industrial levels, tourist demand could fall by nearly 10 per cent – or more than 15 per cent in a scenario at 4°C, the report states.

Last year, the UN warned that the world is on track for nearly 3°C of warming under current climate plans – far beyond the safe threshold of 1.5°C set in the Paris climate agreement.

But for now, visitor numbers aren’t a concern, as recent overtourism protests from Barcelona to Malaga illustrate.

“Rising sea levels, for now, have no hard effect,” says Jorge. “On the contrary, we are experiencing a boom in the arrival of tourists.”

Spain welcomed a record 53.4 million international tourists up to 31 July – a 12 per cent increase on last year. This pumped €71.1 billion into the economy, according to data from Spain’s National Institute of Statistics (INE).

‘The heat is becoming unbearable’

Yet Spain’s tourism industry faces the looming threat of climate change on other fronts.

“The biggest problem remains the constant loss of thermal comfort due to the increase of tropical nights, with temperatures above 20ºC. So the heat is becoming unbearable,” Jorge says.

This could force tourist destinations to make investments in urban design, such as adding more trees and water fountains in the streets, the experts say.

In the meantime, tourists are already starting to turn to the cooler northern regions of the country, long shunned.

Between 2019 and 2023 – a record-hot year in Spain – tourism spending increased the most in the least hot regions of Spain, research from Spanish financial services company CaixaBank, published in January, shows.

It remains to be seen whether the trend will continue.

Have you ever wondered which European cities have the best, worst and busiest metro networks? New research reveals the answers.

Luggage storage company Bounce has looked into all of the services across the continent’s capital cities – and made some surprising discoveries.

While the London Underground is perhaps the most famous of all of Europe’s metro networks, it doesn’t even come in the top five best.

It lost points for its huge numbers of passengers and confusing layout, making it difficult for tourists to navigate.

In its research, the company considered a wide range of factors, from the average Google review score of stations and the distance covered by the system to the number of stations, the annual ridership, and the percentage of positive and negative online reactions to each service. The data was then combined into an ‘underground index’ score.

It’s important to note that Moscow and Kyiv’s metro systems were excluded due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, and Minsk metro was not included due to the US Department of State’s level 4 advisory against travel to Belarus.

Where has the best metro system in Europe?

Oslo came top of the ranking, with an index score of 8.06 out of 10.

The Norwegian capital’s system, known locally as the Oslo T-Bane or T-banen i Oslo, boasts 101 stations covering 85km of track. It serves all 15 of the city’s boroughs, as well as extending part-way into the neighbouring Baerum municipality.

The Oslo Metro comprises five separate lines – and another is currently under construction.

The system’s busiest station is Jernbanetorget. It’s part of the largest transport hub in Norway, along with the Oslo Bus Terminal, Oslo’s Central Station, and the attached tram station. Jernbanetorget itself has been described as “easy to get around”, “very well organised”, and “nice and clean” in its many online reviews.

Up next is Sofia’s metro system with an index score of 7.64 out of 10

The Bulgarian capital’s metro is the only one in the country as well as one of the youngest in the study, having only opened to passengers in 1998.

The city’s metro system covers 52km of track and is accessible via 47 stations, including one at Sofia Airport.

That particular station has a Google review score of 4.10 out of 5 and is a favourite with passengers, who say there’s plenty of English language signage, including payment instructions which, they say, makes it simple and accessible for foreign visitors.

Tourists and locals alike also enjoy the Aleksandar Malinov and Moesia/NBU stations, which both earned Google review scores of 4.70 out of 5.

Aleksandar Malinov station is situated in the Mladost area of southern Sofia and is frequently praised for its attractive architecture and decor, in particular the modern forest-like artwork that decorates one of its platforms.

The Moesia/NBU metro station, located in a suburban area of western Sofia has, according to reviewers, exceptional cleanliness.

Athens Metro offers cheap, quick and regular public transport

In third place is the Greek capital, with a score of 7.29 out of 10.

Athens Metro provides a direct link to the airport, which allows travellers to access the city centre with cheap, quick and regular public transport.

It also connects to the city’s busy Piraeus port area, which supports travel by ferry to many Greek island destinations.

The Athens Metro has 62 stations across 70km of track and sees more than a quarter of a million passengers every year, something that makes it an integral part of the city’s transport infrastructure.

The average Google review score for all metro stations in the city is 4.10 out of 5, although the busiest, Syntagma station, netted a score of just 3.50 out of 5.

Bounce says this is likely down to how busy it can be, although some reviews do praise it for being “modern, spacious, clean”, and others appreciate exhibits on the ticket hall level.

Rounding out the top 10 are Madrid in Spain and Warsaw in Poland, which received overall scores of 6.74 and 6.60 respectively.

The rest of the top ranking is made up of London’s Underground, Lisbon’s and Copenhagen’s systems, which scored equally, and Bucharest and Prague’s metros.

The worst metro systems are located in some of Europe’s most visited cities

Despite Budapest’s many charms, its metro is nothing to write home about.

In fact, the Hungarian capital’s offering has been given the dubious honour of the worst of its kind in Europe, with an index score of just 3.13 out of 10.

Although the Budapest metro system is relatively small, with 48 stations across 39km of track, it has a very large number of annual passengers at over 382 million.

While the average Google review score across all metro stations was a respectable 4.05 out of 5, 75 per cent of online reactions to articles about the metro system were “hate”, while just 1 per cent of reactions were “love”.

Határ út station is the city’s lowest-rated metro stop, earning a Google review score of just 2.80 out of 5.

The station receives a lot of criticism, with comments describing it as “a rather unpleasant place” and others saying it “looks pretty terrible”.

Cleanliness is another major complaint at the station, with reviewers bemoaning “a lot of garbage” everywhere, and others calling it “simply disgusting”.

The second worst metro service was found to be, perhaps surprisingly, Brussels’.

The Belgian capital, which has 59 stations along 40km of track, scored only 3.20 out of 10 on Bounce’s index.

Home to the European Union, the city has a busy metro that carries more than 86 million passengers a year – making it a vital part of the city’s infrastructure while reducing traffic and congestion on the roads.

The busiest metro station, Gare du Midi, happens to be the lowest-rated, with a Google review score of just 1.90 out of 5.

Some reviewers have gone so far as to call the station the worst in Belgium and even Europe, saying it is “unsafe” and “dangerous”, with a shocking number of people referencing the strong smell of urine that travellers must contend with.

Rome’s metro system also scored poorly

Coming in just behind Brussels as having the third worst metro system in Europe is Rome.

The Italian capital’s metro may have 64km of track, spread across 73 stations, but it only received an index score of 3.75 out of 10.

While it is no doubt extensive and well-connected to other public transport options in the Eternal City, its metro stations received an average Google review score of just 3.60 out of 5, with only 13.21 per cent of stations receiving a score of four or above.

Additionally, 34 per cent of online reactions to news articles about the Rome Metro are “angry”, in contrast to “love” reactions, which account for just 9 per cent.

Quintiliani is the worst-reviewed metro station in Rome, with a score of only 2.40 out of 5.

Many reviews for this station reference the lack of staff and security, which, along with the “desolate” surrounding area, makes many travellers feel unsafe.

Station facilities, including elevators and ticket machines, have been referenced multiple times for being out of action, making travel here more difficult for passengers.

Some disgruntled passengers have called Quintiliani “the most useless station ever” and a “perfect example of a poorly looked after place”.

What is Europe’s largest and busiest metro system?

Bounce’s research revealed more than just the best and worst of metro services in Europe.

For instance, it found that the Paris Metro has 320 stations along its 245km of track – more than any other metro system in Europe.

It is also the busiest in the continent – after Moscow, not included in Bounce’s research.

Paris’ system frequently carries close to 1.5 billion passengers annually, which equates to roughly 4.1 million passengers every day.

As well as being world-famous, London’s tube system covers the greatest distance of all European metro systems.

The London Underground has some 402km of track which is served by 272 stations.

Each of the English capital’s 32 individual boroughs are well-served by the city’s system, colloquially referred to as ‘the Tube’.

It stretches well beyond the city limits, reaching into the surrounding counties of Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Surrey. Around 1.2 billion people, living in the city centre or in commuter areas, use the Tube every year.

What is Europe’s least busy metro system?

London’s population is pushing 9 million, whereas Helsinki is closer to 600,000. It won’t surprise you, then, that the Finnish capital’s metro system is the least busy in Europe.

It’s also the smallest system in Bounce’s study, with just 30 stations, but it’s a well liked metro, with an average Google review rating of 4.07.

“Public transport in Europe is generally of a very high standard, relatively affordable and is often well-signposted with English-language directions and instructions, alongside the local language, making it more accessible and easier to use,” Cody Candee, CEO and Founder of Bounce, says.

“Travellers in Europe might go their entire trip without ever getting in a car. Many airports have their own metro or railway station with links directly to the city centre, while buses and metros can often take you to any part of larger cities.”

While not all metros are created equal, he adds, they all have something to offer: “Aside from being a quick and practical way of getting around, many metro stations have beautiful designs, and visiting them can be an experience in itself.”

Wizz Air, which earlier this year received the unenviable title of ‘Worst Airline in Europe’ from consumer body Which? – has announced it’s launching long-haul flights.

The Hungary-based company will start flying from London Gatwick to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in March 2025 and will follow in June with a route from Milan to Abu Dhabi.

Known as a no-frills airline, with all add-ons costing customers extra, Wizz Air’s long-haul flights are likely to offer much the same experience as on shorter trips.

The company’s CEO, József Váradi,  is clearly aware of this, saying he hopes budget-savvy customers are willing to “suffer the pain” of the gruelling longer flights.

Váradi confirmed that, similarly to its short-haul services in Europe, Wizz Air’s flights to the Middle East will have only economy seats on board.

What will a long-haul flight with Wizz Air be like?

The seats will be in the same format as those on short-haul flights – and they certainly won’t recline or come with any luxurious features.

However, Váradi says he’s confident that passengers will be happy with the “ultra low-cost” experience – and he expects to launch further similar routes in the near future.

“Fifteen to 20 years ago I thought three hours would test passenger tolerance,” Váradi explained at a press conference. “[But] people vote with their wallets.”

The launch comes at the same time as the introduction of a new Airbus fleet capable of longer journeys.

The Airbus A321 XLR light-body aircraft allows Wizz Air to increase its maximum flight time from six hours to eight.

Fares will start from £134.99 (€160) for UK passengers for a one-way flight to Jeddah. On the way back, journeys will be slightly cheaper, owing to the UK’s air passenger duty charge. That figure is about half as much as a standard flight to the Saudi Arabian city, if booked today.

“I just think that economics are so crucial to people,” Váradi enthused. “When you take a light body aircraft of any kind, and you take economy versus what most people do, you sacrifice some level of comfort.

“You are not on a flatbed. You suffer the pain if you wish for the economic benefits that you are deriving from the transaction,” he added.

While it appears these long-haul flights are just the start of Váradi’s plans, he confirmed that the company has no intention of crossing the Atlantic to the US with its new aircraft.

Several airlines, including Ireland’s Aer Lingus, already fly transatlantic on slightly older Airbus A321LR single-aisle jets, but Váradi said that Wizz would simply be “buried” by competitors flying across the pond.

“We don’t want to be bullied in the ocean,” he said.

Is Wizz Air the right airline to take such a jump in aviation?

Wizz has been attempting to make strides in the industry recently, last month announcing an all-you-can-fly subscription – with no-frills, of course.

Despite these attempts to improve its reputation, the airline has been ranked Europe’s worst by Which? for two consecutive years.

In the last ranking, it received just one star for both seat comfort and cabin environment – and only two stars in every other category.

Which? found that some 44 per cent of passengers surveyed reported some sort of problem with their trip, including being split up from fellow travellers who didn’t pay for seat selection.

That’s likely to hit harder on an eight-hour flight, as opposed to a two-hour journey.

Wizz Air also recorded the worst punctuality for three consecutive years in an analysis of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) data by PA News.

Are budget long-haul flights sustainable?

On top of that, there is sustainability to consider.

While Wizz was named the Most Sustainable Low-Cost Airline for the fourth consecutive year at the World Finance Sustainability Awards 2024, its new schemes could see it stand to lose this title.

Speaking to Euronews Travel after the launch of the subscription service in August, some environmentalists expressed their dismay over the “climate-wrecking”new scheme.

Campaign group Stay Grounded called for an urgent ban on frequent flyer programmes, the introduction of a frequent flying levy, and investment in grounded transport, “in order to avoid the worst of climate breakdown”.

Last year, UK non-profit the Travel Foundation said the global availability of long haul flights needs to be capped if we are to meet global climate goals.

Wizz remains confident that its new launches are a good thing – and not as damaging to the environment as opponents say.

“Wizz Air is proud to have the lowest carbon emissions intensity among our airline competitors,” a Wizz Air spokesperson told Euronews Travel in August.

The airline also added that it stands by its aim of reducing its CO2 emissions by 25 per cent by 2030 – compared to 2019 levels.