As the country continues to improve the ecological environment compensation system and environmental public interest litigation system, there has been a notable annual increase in the number of national ecological environment damage cases. Judicial and ecological environment management departments face significant challenges when adjudicating and penalizing these cases, particularly in establishing the baseline, physical quantification, and value quantification of ecological environment damage. These difficulties are further compounded during the environmental damage identification process, where distinguishing the variances across different evaluation stages proves to be a complex task. The research delves into three categories of ecological damage incidents: forest arson and illegal logging, illegal construction and illegal land occupation, and illegal land mining. By categorizing these cases based on the extent of damage, the study statistically analyzes the key element indicators associated with each type of ecological damage. It elucidates the distinctions in the procedures of ecological environment damage identification and assessment for different types of cases. The results highlight that the disparities among the three case types primarily manifest in the selection of baseline objects, potentially encompassing one or more indicators such as vegetation, soil, and groundwater. The three categories-forest arson or illegal logging, illegal construction or illegal land occupation, and illegal land mining-demonstrate a progressive intensification in the extent of vegetation and soil damage. The horizontal impact range is notably susceptible to the influence of the surrounding environment, while the vertical damage extends from the soil surface to deeper layers, progressively deepening and thus escalating the difficulty of recovery. In selecting the program of ecological restoration projects, considerations extend beyond mere ecological restoration. They encompass the additional removal of surface structures or occupying objects, even the backfilling and reclamation of mine pits, contingent upon the severity of the damage. In instances where permanent damage or fundamental recovery is unattainable, alternative restoration strategies can be contemplated, such as the procurement of "carbon sinks" and other innovative approaches. It underscores the importance of a nuanced understanding of the various factors at play in ecological damage cases and the need for tailored solutions that address the unique challenges posed by each scenario. By fostering a deeper understanding of the intricacies and differences in the ecological damage identification process and promoting innovative solutions, this study contributes to the broader goal of sustainable environmental management and protection. The study serves as a valuable theoretical guide for augmenting the scientific rigor, standardization, and practicality of ecological environment damage identification and evaluation efforts.