## 3 Results and Discussion
### Land Use Impacts of USA Ethanol Mandate
On the other hand, in the USA, cropland pasture conversion increases significantly, by more than 0.5 MH (or 47%). Consider now the difference between the results obtained from experiments A (in Table 3) and C (in Table 4). Both experiments are built based on uniform land transformation elasticities, but the former uses a one-nest land cover and the latter uses a two-nest land cover with different values for \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Regions**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Experiment C: Uniform land transformation rates of**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Experiment D: Regional land**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ETL1\({}_{\mathbf{F}}\) = \(-\)0.1818, ETL1\({}_{\mathbf{F}}\) = \(-\)0.2182, and ETL2 = \(-\)0.75**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**transformation rates Presented in**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Table 2**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Forest** & **Cropland** & **Pasture** & **Forest** & **Cropland** & **Pasture** \\ \hline USA & \(-\)243.0 & 1055.9 & \(-\)812.9 & \(-\)64.8 & 157.4 & \(-\)92.7 \\ \hline EU27 & \(-\)73.3 & 137.2 & \(-\)64.0 & \(-\)14.7 & 33.6 & \(-\)18.8 \\ \hline BRAZIL & 45.2 & 101.0 & \(-\)146.3 & 62.5 & 156.7 & \(-\)219.2 \\ \hline CAN & \(-\)110.4 & 176.1 & \(-\)65.6 & \(-\)25.4 & 40.1 & \(-\)14.8 \\ \hline JAPAN & \(-\)2.9 & 3.5 & \(-\)0.6 & \(-\)5.0 & 5.2 & \(-\)0.1 \\ \hline CHIHKG & 21.9 & 60.2 & \(-\)82.2 & \(-\)1.7 & 88.6 & \(-\)86.8 \\ \hline INDIA & \(-\)2.5 & 5.7 & \(-\)3.2 & \(-\)7.0 & 10.5 & \(-\)3.5 \\ \hline C C \_Amer & 38.1 & 22.4 & \(-\)60.5 & 4.5 & 5.4 & \(-\)9.9 \\ \hline S \_o\_Amer & 100.2 & 72.1 & \(-\)172.3 & 68.9 & 114.4 & \(-\)183.3 \\ \hline E \_Asia & 4.0 & 0.9 & \(-\)5.0 & 2.2 & 1.5 & \(-\)3.8 \\ \hline Mala \_Indo & 7.2 & \(-\)3.9 & \(-\)3.3 & 0.9 & 2.1 & \(-\)3.0 \\ \hline R \_SE Asia & 2.0 & 3.1 & \(-\)5.2 & \(-\)11.8 & 14.4 & \(-\)2.5 \\ \hline R \_S Asia & \(-\)1.9 & 26.2 & \(-\)24.2 & \(-\)3.1 & 24.7 & \(-\)21.6 \\ \hline Russia & 176.1 & 18.5 & \(-\)194.7 & 87.3 & 58.0 & \(-\)145.3 \\ \hline OH \_CEE CIS & \(-\)21.3 & 114.8 & \(-\)93.5 & \(-\)7.4 & 28.8 & \(-\)21.4 \\ \hline OH \_Europe & \(-\)0.3 & 1.9 & \(-\)1.7 & \(-\)0.2 & 0.4 & \(-\)0.2 \\ \hline MEAS \_NAfir_ & 0.5 & 92.8 & \(-\)93.3 & 0.2 & 21.8 & \(-\)21.9 \\ \hline S \_S\_AFR & \(-\)14.8 & 273.0 & \(-\)258.2 & \(-\)167.1 & 461.8 & \(-\)294.7 \\ \hline Oceania & \(-\)0.1 & 93.6 & \(-\)93.5 & \(-\)0.5 & 17.9 & \(-\)17.3 \\ \hline Total & \(-\)74.9 & 2255.1 & \(-\)2180.2 & \(-\)82.4 & 1243.2 & \(-\)1160.8 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Cropland Pasture} \\ \hline USA & \(-\)1195.4 & & & \(-\)1788.5 & \\ \hline Brazil & 213.4 & & & \(-\)213.9 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Induced land use changes due to USA ethanol mandate with two-nest land cover: Uniform _versus_ regional land transformation rates (figures are in 1000 hectares). pasture-cropland and the combination of pasture-cropland and forest. These two experiments project very similar patterns for cropland expansion; however the two-nest model estimates a significantly smaller share for forest in expanded cropland. The share of forest in global expanded cropland decreases from 14% to 3%. This indicates that using a two-nest land cover only affects the share of forest in expanded cropland due to ethanol production. We now move to experiment D (Table 4) which includes both regional land transformation elasticities and a two-nest land cover structure. Compared to experiment C, this experiment projects a significantly smaller cropland expansion, by about 45%. And compared to experiment B, it projects a major drop in the share of forest in cropland expansion, 20% in experiment B _versus_ 7% in experiment D. Finally, in comparing experiments A and D one can see that using a two-nest structure with regional land transformation elasticities reduces the magnitude of cropland expansion by about 45%, and decreases the share of forest in cropland expansion to 7%.