 There are a variety of responses to these kinds of criticisms of traditional aesthetics of nature and of the notions of disinterestedness and the picturesque. Some reassess and defend the idea of the picturesque, arguing that it, as well as some other aspects of the eighteenth century tradition, has been misunderstood by some contemporary aestheticians (Brook 2008, Paden et al 2013, Paden 2013 2015a 2015b, Earle 2015). Others turn to the investigation of the long neglected member of the original eighteenth-century triumvirate of the beautiful, the sublime, and the picturesque, finding in the sublime new resources for approaching the aesthetic appreciation of the natural world (Brady 2012 2013, Shapshay 2013, Mahoney 2016). However, whatever the final verdict about the significance of the picturesque and the sublime, the resources of non-cognitive approaches, especially the aesthetics of engagement, are taken to counter the criticisms that, due to the influence of ideas such as that of the picturesque, aesthetic experience of nature must be both anthropocentric and scenery-obsessed (Rolston 1998 2002). The charge of anthropocentricity is also explicitly addressed by the mystery approach, which attempts to give aesthetic appreciation of nature an “acentric” basis (Godlovitch 1994). Concerning the concept of disinterestedness, some philosophers yet hold the view that some form of the theory of disinterestedness is essential, since without it the notion of the aesthetic itself lacks conceptual grounding (Budd 2002), while others claim that an analysis of aesthetic experience in terms of the concept of disinterestedness helps to meet the charges that traditional aesthetics is anthropocentric and subjective, since such an analysis supports the objectivity of aesthetic judgments (Brady 2003). Similarly, cognitive accounts also furnish replies to some of these charges. Scientific cognitivism in particular, with its focus on scientific knowledge such as that given by geology and ecology, is claimed to help meet the worry that aesthetic appreciation of environments is of little significance in environmental conservation and preservation since aesthetic appreciation is trivial and subjective (Hettinger 2005, Parsons 2006a 2008a). Nonetheless, the extent to which scientific cognitivism and related ecology-dependent views can successfully address such problems and doubts concerning the appropriate aesthetic appreciation of both natural and human environments is also questioned on various grounds (Budd 2002, Hettinger 2007, Berleant 2010a 2016, Bannon 2011, Stecker 2012, Herguedas 2018, Mikkonen 2018).