Power mechanisms and structures shape climate change adaptation outcomes, the measures adopted, and who is identified as requiring adaptation support. But to what extent does research recognize such power‐adaptation linkages? Based on a systematic literature review, we enquire if and how the framing of power matters for adaptation research and what the implications may be for practice. Our enquiry is predicated on the relationship between the researcher and the research focus being itself a relationship of power. Since power is complex and a single definition is not desirable, different actor‐orientated frames of power were used for the data analysis. The results show that authors are more likely to work with issues of power to (i.e., agency), power over, and empowerment, rather than resistance or disempowerment. Demonstrating the effect of such frames, these proportions change according to whether the research focuses on equity, effectiveness, or participation. For instance, power to is strongly associated with effectiveness, while disempowerment is associated more with equity. Together with other identified patterns, our review shows that researchers frame power in adaptation in ways that constitute biases and blind spots. Attention to particular frames of power can limit attention to important dynamics within adaptation processes. Both the content and context to which the identified frames are applied suggest structural trends in adaptation research that require increased attention. Since researchers' frames of power influence both research outcomes and broader adaptation‐power relations, the results indicate that reflexivity is needed to improve both adaptation research and practice. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Institutions for Adaptation

No abstract

No abstract

Transformation, transition and regime shift are increasingly applied concepts in the academic literature to describe changes in society and the environment. Ecosystem services represent one framework that includes the implicit aim of supporting transformation towards a more sustainable system. Nevertheless, knowledge and systematic reviews on the use of these concepts within ecosystem services research are so far lacking. Therefore, we present a systematic literature review to analyse the interlinkages between these concepts and ecosystem services. Using a search string we identified 258 papers that we analysed based on 40 review criteria. Our results show that transformation was mentioned most often (197 articles), followed by transition (183 articles) and regime shifts (43 articles). Moreover, there is no consolidation of these concepts. Only 13% of all articles gave definitions for the three concepts. These definitions strongly overlapped in their use. Moreover, most papers described changes that happened in the past (73%). We conclude that research would benefit from being directed towards the future rather than evaluating what has happened in the past. Based on our results, we present: i) clear definitions for the three concepts; and ii) a framework highlighting the interlinkages between the ecosystem services cascade and the concepts of change.