Abstract: Territorial ecological restoration planning is a strategic measure to harmonize human-land relationships and enhance ecosystem services. Accurately identifying restoration priority area is a critical prerequisite for advancing the implementation of ecological security patterns and improving the effectiveness of restoration projects. However, current methods for identifying priority area vary widely, leading to inconsistent results. A unified theoretical framework and methodological system for restoration prioritization has yet to be established. There are research gaps in the key dimensions of “criteria definition, evaluation methodology, and technical pathway”. To address these challenges, we adopted a conceptual approach integrating conceptual cognition, framework construction, and issue analysis to articulate the theoretical connotation of ecological restoration prioritization in territorial spatial planning. We proposed a comprehensive evaluation framework that incorporates three core assessment dimensions (value, risk, and cost), encompassing natural resource endowments, ecological pressure intensity, and restoration cost constraints. This framework was further guided by the dual objectives of minimizing costs and maximizing benefits. Then, we developed a four-step technical process for prioritization, including baseline resource analysis, urgency assessment, feasibility evaluation, and benefit estimation of restoration. Restoration prioritization under territorial spatial ecological restoration planning should be grounded in the typological characteristics of the target areas, while spatial zoning and land-use control requirements at both regional and unit scales should be coordinated. We recommended refining prioritization methods across the full planning cycle from diagnosis and formulation to implementation, monitoring, and optimization. It highlighted five critical thematic directions: 1) refined prioritization for multiple restoration types, 2) integrated trade-offs in multi-objective prioritization, 3) cross-scale coordination and transmission of priorities, 4) dynamic monitoring through intelligent technologies, and 5) adaptive adjustment across long temporal scales. These efforts would provide a robust theoretical foundation and methodological support for enhancing the scientific rigor and practical effectiveness of territorial spatial ecological restoration planning.

Key words: territorial ecological restoration planning, prioritization for ecological restoration, value-risk-cost, minimum cost-maximum benefit, research progress and trend, planning issue