Comparisons of the costs of reduced-impact (RIL) and conventional logging (CL) based on new data from Gabon and 10 previously published studies revealed that some tropical forest operators should adopt RIL out of financial self-interest but many may require other motivation. Among the comparisons in which costs were expressed per cubic meter of harvested timber, three reported lower costs for RIL, one showed identical costs with CL, and six reported RIL to be more costly.