Fig. 3. Composite policy performance ratings illustrating the trade-offs inherent in ten common fishery management strategies. The overall average performance of the management strategy rows increases from top to bottom; the numbers correspond to their order of discussion in the text. The pattern of scores, color-coded for positive (green, +1), neutral (grey, 0), and negative (red, -1) outcomes, provides a policy footprint for each strategy. Minimum and maximum scores were assigned by the authors for the weak ‘panacea’ and more nuanced descriptions, respectively, by synthesizing published accounts cited in the text and our individual experiences. The range between these scores expresses our estimate of the uncertainty in the strategy, while the average score is our best estimate for the performance of each management strategy, aggregated across all modalities. Columns correspond to assessments along five policy performance modalities: Ecological, Economic and Social scores are based on sustainability criteria that measure viability (Pitcher and Preikshot 2001); Ethical scores are informed by an interdisciplinary ethical analysis for fisheries (Pitcher and Power 2000; Coward et al. 2000); and Institutional scores relate to data and infrastructure required to implement an institutional framework (Ostrom 2005) capable of delivering this management strategy.