Objective In recent years, China has systematically strengthened its top-level strategic planning for the conservation of both cultural and natural heritage. In the domain of cultural heritage, a comprehensive preservation framework has been established to safeguard historical and cultural assets across urban and rural contexts, while actively identifying and documenting emerging heritage categories—including modern heritage and agricultural heritage. In parallel, China has instituted a national park−centered protected areas system to enhance the conservation and sustainable management of natural heritage. Against the backdrop of ongoing institutional strengthening for both cultural and natural heritage protection, the holistic protection of cultural and natural heritage has attracted growing attention. However, three interrelated challenges currently impede its effective implementation across China: first, limited recognition of the holistic value and intrinsic significance of heritage assets; second, imprecise delineation of spatial conservation boundaries; and third, fragmented regulatory mechanisms that hinder coordinated protection and sustainable development. To address these gaps, this study draws on planning practice and empirical experience from Hunan Province to propose a provincial-level technical framework for holistic protection planning. The framework aims to advance methodological rigor in regional-scale spatial governance, strengthen the operational linkage between planning formulation and on-the-ground implementation, and support the practical realization of holistic protection objectives.

Methods Holistic protection planning for cultural and natural heritage constitutes a specialized sectoral plan of the territorial spatial planning system, designed specifically to overcome the limitations arising from fragmented, sector-specific protection approaches. At the provincial level, such holistic protection planning is grounded in two defining characteristics of heritage resources—regional and interdependence features. It advances a coherent technical pathway comprising four sequential yet iterative phases: 1) overall value recognition, 2) spatial recognition of conservation areas, 3) tiered spatial regulatory guidance, and 4) implementation-oriented planning transmission. First, it is essential to advance the overall value recognition of heritage. This requires a systematic identification and documentation of resources that embody landscape evolution, human−environment interactions, and regional interconnections—while also demonstrating distinctive regional and landscape significance. Priority should be given to four resource categories: natural landscapes, evolutionary cultural landscapes, associative cultural landscapes, and heritage corridors. These categories are intended to address critical gaps in the current heritage protection framework. Second, protection spaces must be delineated through a relational, integrative approach—structured across two complementary tiers: regional characteristic zones and key units. At the provincial scale, regional characteristic zones should be defined holistically, integrating natural geography, built environment attributes (e.g., architectural typologies and material traditions), and socio-cultural continuities. The objective is to safeguard and reinforce local spatial identity over time. Subsequently, key units are to be identified based on heritage value significance, spatial connectivity, and resource concentration—explicitly transcending administrative boundaries. Such units must constitute coherent landscape entities with functional and perceptual integrity, and simultaneously serve as operational management units for implementing targeted conservation controls. Third, spatial governance and guidance must be calibrated to the functional logic of characteristic zoning. Within regional characteristic zones, management requirements are primarily strategic and facilitative—designed to preserve historical continuity and amplify regional distinctiveness. Control measures for key units are articulated across two complementary dimensions: 1) adhere to the bottom line of protection—ensuring the authenticity and integrity of heritage resources through baseline restrictions on land use, development intensity, and visual intrusion in sensitive areas; 2) landscape enhancement—establishing principled guidelines for compatible land use, spatial transitions, and contextual integration of heritage assets with their surrounding environments. Furthermore, a major project risk assessment mechanism is instituted to support preliminary review of proposed developments with potential heritage impacts. Fourth, planning transmission and implementation must be effective to support characteristic enhancement. A hierarchical implementation framework is to be established—linking provincial-level sectoral plans with municipal/county-level sectoral plans through clearly defined technical alignment. Transmission encompasses three dimensions: 1) heritage resource elements, 2) designated protection spaces, and 3) project-related risk considerations, involving spatial positioning, boundary delineation, refinement of control criteria, inter-municipal coordination mechanisms, and integration of major project risk assessments into early-stage planning review processes.

Results Drawing on experience from Hunan Province, this study validates the operational feasibility of a technical framework for provincial-level holistic protection planning of cultural and natural heritage. Through systematic analysis of natural geography, built-environment characteristics, and socio-cultural continuities, the research identified heritage resources aligned with a holistic protection rationale. This enabled the delineation of Hunan Province into six regional characteristic zones and the subsequent identification of seven categories of key units. Using the Dongting Lake polder embankment unit as a representative case, the paper articulates a four-pillar control strategy—comprising baseline safeguards, construction regulation, landscape design guidance, activation and utilization—within provincial sectoral planning. Moreover, it demonstrates how provincial-level planning mandates are operationally refined and implemented at the municipal/county levels, thereby confirming the functional efficacy and institutional enforceability of the planning transmission mechanism.

Conclusion The essence of holistic protection for cultural and natural heritage lies in safeguarding the dynamic, co-evolutionary relationships between human societies and natural systems. A holistic protection plan serves as an integrative governance instrument that addresses the fragmentation inherent in current sectoral management regimes. Specifically, it advances a unified understanding of heritage significance, enables the strategic integration of high-value resources into designated protection and management spaces, and strengthens the implementation of planning objectives through regulatory tools, including land-use controls, planning conditions, permitting procedures, and vertically coordinated transmission of planning mandates. Currently, holistic protection remains in an experimental phase; its methodological foundations require further refinement through cross-regional comparative research, while its conceptual and operational frameworks must be iteratively enhanced through evidence-based learning from pilot implementations.