 There is, in addition, considerable interest in environmental aesthetics in the East, which likewise draws on both analytic and continental traditions as well as on Eastern philosophy (Cheng 2010 2013b 2017b, Yuedi 2014, Chen 2015). Several different topics concerning both natural and human environments are addressed in the recent work in this area, which includes research not only by Eastern but also by Western scholars (Xue 2008 2018, Xue and Carlson 2010, Saito 2014a, Aota 2016, Berleant 2013a 2016, Carlson 2017, Odin 2017, Zeng Y. 2017, Brubaker 2018, Chung 2018, Parsons and Zhang 2018). There are also some collections that contain relevant essays (Cheng et al 2013, Yuedi and Carter 2014a, Callicott and McRae 2017, Nguyen 2018) as well as some journal issues devoted especially to recent work in Eastern aesthetics, for example, Critical Theory, 1, 2 (2017) and Contemporary Aesthetics, Special Volume 6 (2018). Within this body of work, perhaps the most dominate area of interest is ecological aesthetics, which is pursued by several Chinese aestheticians, who have developed robust versions of ecoaesthetics (Cheng 2013a 2016, Zeng F. 2017). Other than the sources cited here, much of this work is available only in Chinese. However, one prominent version of ecoaesthetics, which is accessible in English, embraces, as the “four keystones of ecological aesthetic appreciation”, not only the centrality of ecological knowledge and the rejection of the duality of humanity and the natural world, but also the over-arching value of ecosystem biodiversity and health and the continued guidance of ecological ethics (Cheng 2013c). While the first two of these four “keystones” reflect scientific cognitivism and the aesthetics of engagement, the last two go well beyond these Western positions. By placing ecosystem health and ecological ethics within the framework of ecoaesthetics, Chinese ecological aesthetics directly and powerfully addresses the question of the relationship between environmental aesthetics and environmental ethics (Carlson 2018). This move is comparable to, and perhaps more successful than, the attempts by Western aestheticians to bring aesthetic appreciation of both natural and human environments in line with moral obligations to maintain environmental and ecological health (Rolston 1995, Eaton 1997 1998, Lintott 2006, Saito 2007 2008, Varandas 2015) and to forge strong positive links between aesthetic appreciation of nature and nature protection and preservation (Rolston 2002, Brady 2003, Carlson and Lintott 2007, Parsons 2008a, Carlson 2010, Lintott and Carlson 2014, Parsons 2018). Nonetheless, the degree to which aesthetic appreciation of both natural and human environments and ethical considerations are related to one another continues to be a matter of investigation, discussion, and debate (Loftis 2003, Bannon 2011, Stecker 2012, Carlson 2018, Stewart and Johnson 2018).