## Results and Analysis
### Cognition of Timely Adjustment and Regulation Countermeasures of the GPP  
\"Was there a need to adjust the GPP? How should it have been adjusted?\" These two problems were the key issue to be solved urgently under the background of vigorously promoting the ecological civilization construction and green development. Among the 16 LGMs surveyed, three LGMs  
Figure 8: Forecast of the relationship between the grazing prohibition policy (GPP) and grassland ecology. (**a**) indicate that If the GPP go, what will the local grassland ecology be like in the future? (**b**) indicate that If the GPP stop, what will the local grassland ecology be like in the future? recommended the retention of the GPP, which is now completely banned in the whole county at all times (four seasons and 24 h). Their main concern was that once the GPP was cancelled, grazing would be difficult to control, which would lead to the destruction of the ecological restoration of the GPP for many years. The remaining 13 LGMs considered it necessary to make appropriate adjustments to the current GPP. This selectivity accounted for as much as 81.25%. They believed that the pure grazing prohibition was not in line with the local ecological background in the context of arid and semi-arid grassland, nor with the goal of the development of local animal husbandry, because the economic benefits of grazing prohibition were not significant. The corresponding countermeasures had three aspects: First, grazing was the most cost-effective, the most efficient way of forage utilization. Moderate grazing utilization was beneficial to the circulation of grassland ecosystem regeneration. Some LGMs recommended an assessment of grassland ecological restoration in the subregion and an appropriate lifting of the ban according to the condition of vegetation restoration. A change in seasonal grazing could be implemented in order to achieve a reasonable balance between grassland and livestock. Furthermore, the local government encouraged planting an annual pasture. Second, to create innovative institutional mechanisms, including grassland management, grassland ecological evaluation, and compensation standards of the GPP. \"What traditional experiences in the past can be used for grassland management?\" 25% of LGMs chose the first priority scheme to determine the livestock carrying capacity based on the grassland. It was considered an important measure to make a rational utilization of grassland resources and ensure the development of animal husbandry. The LGMs expect to increase the subsidies for this scheme. Ninety-six percent of the LGMs believed that the ecological compensation standard in Yanchi County was too low and 93.75% of LGMs expect the GPP to extend the subsidy period, increase the subsidy amount, and provide corresponding technical support (Figure 9a). Third, more preferential policies should be introduced by local government to mobilize herdsmen's enthusiasm for ecological protection and to encourage the herdsmen to increase their income in a variety of ways and channels. Seventy-five percent of the LGMs held this view (Figure 9a). Through the multi-agent systems of herdsman-government behavior, [PERSON] et al. found that the illegal grazing behavior of herdsman could be decreased when the ratio between the number of inspectors and herdsman reached 1.5, or the ratio between the forfeit and income of trespass grazing reached 5.8, or the probability of trespass grazing being detected was greater than 0.73 [30]. The transformation of the herdsmen's mode of production and the non-agricultural and diversified livelihood of herdsmen can fundamentally and effectively put an end to the phenomenon of illegal grazing at night [30; 31]. The option support rates for the LGMs were 81.25% and 68.75%, respectively (Figure 9b). Figure 9: The expectations of ecological compensation and the solutions of the local government managers (LGMs) for trespass grazing. (**a**) indicate that the expectations of ecological compensation of LGMs.