How to Ensure System Sustainability: Paradoxical Cognition and Adaptive Strategies for the Value Creation Process of Megaprojects

Abstract

A megaproject is a complex technological-social-natural system, and its “double-edged sword” effect raises significant attention in research on system sustainability. However, prior studies often overlook the long-term characteristics of megaprojects, while paradox provides an effective lens for explaining their long-term evolution. Guided by a “context-cognition-action” analytical frame, this study employs an inductive and longitudinal case study approach to investigate the value creation process of a typical megaproject, focusing on paradoxical cognition, adaptive strategies, and core drivers of system sustainability. The findings reveal that “macro demand-tension cognition-adaptive governance” is an efficient pathway for value creation under dynamic contexts. Importantly, paradoxical cognition uncovers multi-level tensions (macro, meso, micro) in value creation, with a complex shift from a single layer to a nested structure as macro demands intensify. Correspondingly, adaptive strategies exhibit distinct logic: from reactive strategies to proactive strategies. This shift drives the evolution from the “Project–City–Environment” composite system to the “Project–City–Environment–Region” complex giant system. Furthermore, the evolution of responsibility is the core driver of system sustainability, characterized by a transition from intragenerational equity to intergenerational obligations driven by technological advancements. This study advances theoretical understanding of value creation and provides practical insights into the sustainable development of future megaprojects.

1. Introduction

Megaprojects have been described as projects typically costing more than billions of dollars, which involve many private and public stakeholders [1]. As a “big solution” to the crisis of resource scarcity and increasing demand, megaprojects are booming worldwide and are having a significant impact on social and economic development as well as on the natural environment [2,3]. This impact even crosses generations [4]. They play a crucial role in supporting economic growth and providing social services that improve people’s lives and well-being, thereby creating a positive or negative impact across different Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [5]. The literature is replete with cases of megaprojects going off track, leading to serious delays, cost overruns, and underachievement of desired goals [6]. Infrastructure projects have been criticized for not providing equitable value to effectively address major challenges, such as adequately addressing the diversity of stakeholder demands and their uneven social and ecological impacts [7]. Consequently, the sustainability of megaprojects has emerged as a critical concern in ensuring that their long-term benefits outweigh their negative consequences [8,9].

The sustainability of megaprojects requires a shift from the traditional product creation view—focused on achieving the iron-triangle objectives of time, cost, and scope—to a value creation perspective [10]. For example, Chang et al. [6] argued that the Sydney Opera House was considered a major failure in terms of the iron-triangle goals criterion, yet over time more value was captured by many stakeholders. Megaproject value creation is defined as a long-term, iterative process [11,12], which dynamically adapts to evolving macro-environments—including societal and natural systems [13]—and ensures sustainability by balancing short-term project objectives with long-term systemic health [14]. It is worth noting that value creation does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes. Literature has actively explored value creation in two directions. First, “avoiding trouble” by controlling negative impacts, such as focusing on environmental protection and social and ecological losses brought about by project construction [3,15]. Second, “turning to good ”by promoting positive outputs, such as the study of sustainable creation paths and mechanisms of megaprojects [8,16]. They provide insights for exploring how to balance value creation and destruction, and the dynamic features of value creation must be further explored throughout the project lifecycle [17,18].

The value creation of megaprojects is a process composed of a series of innovative activities aimed at multiple values. In this process, competing demands, conflicts, contradictions, and dilemmas are involved because of multiple stakeholders [19,20]. Effectively managing the above contradictions is rooted in paradoxical cognition, which involves frames and processes that recognize and juxtapose contradictory demands, allowing teams to effectively embrace rather than avoid contradictions [21,22]. That is, decision-makers of megaprojects advocate for delivering novel and complex solutions from the perspective of paradox theory [23]. The above-mentioned studies demonstrate that paradox theory has advantages in explaining value creation and sustainability in megaprojects. However, research on paradoxes in the value creation process, particularly within inter-organizational relationships and project activities in the context of megaprojects, has largely focused on the types of overviews of tensions [23,24,25]. While these studies provide a starting point for understanding paradoxical tensions in major projects, they fall short of offering a systematic analysis of how these tensions evolve or how approaches to managing them adapt over time.

This study addresses this gap by exploring the following research question: How do project managers govern paradoxes to sustainably create value and drive system evolution? Specifically, it examines the following four sub-questions: What are the driving factors behind paradoxes in the value creation process of megaprojects? What types of paradoxes emerge? How do these paradoxes evolve? What strategies do managers adopt in response, and what project systems are achieved?

The research question is addressed through representative major water engineering projects in China as research samples using the grounded theory approach. Drawing on insights from Eastern and Western paradox and contradiction theories, this study explores the relevance of paradoxical thinking and adaptive principles in shaping a paradoxical management approach from a dialectical perspective. The main academic contributions of this study are reflected in two aspects: First, it develops a multi-level, dynamic adaptability framework for sustainable value creation in megaprojects through a paradox evolution lens. This framework introduces a dynamic perspective to explore the paradox, system, and sustainability relationship and provides an in-depth exploration for theoretical research on management in megaprojects. Second, the dynamic model offers a novel lens for interpreting the theoretical foundations of the SDGs, emphasizing a shift in focus from “human-to-human” governance to a more holistic “humans-to-nature” system governance. The structure of the paper is as follows: a review of existing literature, followed by the methodology, presentation of case analysis findings, development of the conceptual framework, and concluding with a discussion of the study’s contributions.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Value Creation in Megaprojects

The economic valuation rationale for projects is a comparison of project benefits and notional ratio of costs compared with the long-term anticipated benefits [26]. These benefits, which can be either short-term or long-term, are quantified in monetary terms [27]. For megaprojects, the purpose is not only to create immediate economic outputs that can be captured through market transactions but also to generate a host of positive externalities [15]. This makes value difficult to measure quantitatively. Moreover, value is generated not only by the built infrastructure but also by its operational characteristics, such as service quality, accessibility, and affordability [28]. Accordingly, the value of projects has come to be seen not merely as the economic worth of the immediate ‘outputs’ of the project but rather as the consequent ‘outcomes’ and ‘impact,’ which represent the value generated across the lifecycle of projects [29,30]. It represents the value created through the interaction and collaboration of participants throughout the project life cycle. Compared with general projects, the value of megaprojects is often rooted in the needs of multiple stakeholders, such as scientific exploration, national security guarantees, and social and economic development [30,31]. Based on this, this study defines megaprojects’ value as the project practices and results under the joint action of societal, scientific, technological, natural, and other forces, as well as the positive significance, usefulness, and sustainability demonstrated in meeting the needs of national strategy and regional social livelihood.

Value creation of megaprojects is a process in which actors achieve specific goals through the integration of various heterogeneous elements [6,20]. Compared with general projects, megaprojects extend beyond the traditional “owner-contractor” binary system to encompass a multi-stakeholder ecosystem. This ecosystem includes governments, NGOs, communities, and other broader relevant groups, all of whom participate as co-creators [32,33]. However, the value creation in megaprojects does not always yield positive outcomes. The involvement of a wide range of heterogeneous stakeholders means diverse value perceptions, goals, expectations, and needs, which leads to conflicting interests, exacerbating contradictions and conflicts in the interactions among participants [20], thereby complicating collective action [34,35]. Additionally, tensions may arise between different stages of the value creation process [36,37]. These opposing tensions can manifest at various levels—individual, organizational, and societal—and significantly impact the overall value creation of megaprojects. Therefore, coping with tension management in megaprojects not only enriches the application of paradox theory [38] but also serves as a critical mechanism for fostering the healthy development of project value creation.

2.2. Paradoxical Tensions in Megaprojects

Megaproject paradoxes refer to contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time in project activities [23]. In the 1980s and 1990s, mainstream theory viewed paradoxes as interactive cues that were defined and communicated over time [39,40,41], emphasizing “both/and” holistic thinking rather than “either/or” thinking patterns [22]. By the 2000s, a wave of research emerged that recognized contradictory interdependencies in a more normative way. Today, the core idea that contradictory tensions are embedded in competing demands—opposed yet interdependent—is widely accepted in research.

Some studies have identified specific paradoxes in the value creation of megaprojects from individual and/or organizational levels [23,24]. For example, from the perspective of organizational relationships, scholars have highlighted the distance paradox, learning paradox, identity paradox, difference paradox, and time paradox [25,42]. Furthermore, Wiewiora and Desouza [23] expanded the list of paradoxes to seven types, including the stakeholder paradox, structure paradox, and decision paradox, and summarized corresponding management measures. While the study of single paradoxes provided a theoretically useful perspective in the past, the 21st century has introduced unprecedented complexity, resulting in multiple interconnected paradoxes that significantly impact value creation [22,43]. Examples include the three-layer nested paradox relationship of innovation [44], the four types of paradox influencing factors in organizational value creation and capture [37], and the dynamic equilibrium model of continuous interaction with changing competitive demands [22,45]. Researchers have increasingly recognized the interdependence of opposing elements, such as the relationship between stability and change and between long-term and short-term objectives [23,46].

However, many nuances and complexities characterizing these interdependencies remain untested or inadequately theorized [47]. Sheep et al. [48] introduced the concept of a tension “knot”, suggesting that tensions can amplify or weaken each other’s influence. This provides a theoretical foundation for analyzing and managing the multi-level paradoxical relationships in megaprojects. Despite this, approaches to managing tension have received limited attention in the megaproject management literature [23,24,49]. Specifically, prior research on value creation in megaprojects has primarily focused on the identification, definition, and strategies of paradox types, with limited attention given to the underlying complex relationships between these paradoxes and the dynamic nature required for effective paradox management.

2.3. Value Sustainability and Paradoxical Evolution of Megaprojects

Paradoxical evolution of megaprojects significantly impacts value sustainability. Drawing on project evolution theory, project value is shaped by the continuous adjustment, mutual influence, and adaptive evolution of a ternary system comprising the project, nature, and society [50]. This perspective provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the origins and evolutionary trajectory of value creation [14,51], positioning evolution as a novel lens for examining value creation and sustainable development in megaprojects [13].

From the perspective of systematic evolution, paradoxes persist over time but often remain latent until changes in contextual conditions or actors’ cognition arise [22,38]. As existing research has shown, tensions may arise from either malignant or benign driving factors, such as contextual conditions of plurality and scarcity [37,45]. For example, scarcity can trigger resource allocation challenges between contradictory yet coexisting needs (e.g., financial, temporal, and human) [52]. Given the long-term and multi-agent nature of megaprojects, these factors are particularly salient, leading to the recurrent emergence of tensions across different stages and among various stakeholders [25,53]. Moreover, the challenge in tension management practice lies in the fact that cognitive differences can lead to varied interpretations of the same contradictory elements—viewing them either as opportunities for development or as obstacles to implementation [47]. Previous research has extensively examined management of tensions in the construction phase of megaprojects but has paid little attention to the dynamics of these tensions across different project phases [53]. This gap is disconcerting since the project management literature recognizes the long-term operation as critical to the continuity of a megaproject [51].

It is also crucial that the strategies for tensions are necessary for value sustainability. Certain dual-effect mechanisms may play a critical role in breaking the vicious cycle of tension [37]. For example, the appropriate balance between relational and contractual governance among participants can mitigate opportunistic behaviors and alleviate tensions in the value creation process [54]. Similarly, value shared vision established at the project’s front end can act as a unifying mechanism, aligning stakeholders around shared goals and directions [55]. Compared to the integration and separation strategies demonstrated in the aforementioned studies, having an adaptive mindset enables decision-makers to flexibly employ different strategies, swiftly recognize and respond to environmental signals, and better confront extremes [23]. Previous research has proposed a dynamic equilibrium model of paradoxes from a general organizational perspective, providing a foundation for sustainability research [22,52]. The balance and coping strategies are beneficial to ensure value sustainability, but with little attention paid to the long-term, holistic, and interconnected nature of project systems.

In conclusion, a comprehensive exploration of how adaptive strategies influence value sustainability from the perspective of paradox evolution remains an under-explored area. Therefore, this study aims to uncover the paradoxical cognition, adaptive strategies, and core drivers of value creation within megaprojects, ultimately contributing to the long-term sustainable development of the system.

3. Methodology

This study adopted an inductive and longitudinal single-case study approach to explore the paradox evolution and coping process in order to create sustainable value in megaprojects. There are three reasons to use this approach. First, the research question focuses on the dynamic correlation between behavior (how) and phenomenon (what), and the inductive case study approach provides a richer insight into the theoretical logic behind the process [56]. Second, although many studies have been conducted to explore the paradox of megaprojects, there is a lack of a research framework constructed from an evolutionary perspective [53]. The longitudinal case study approach, which focuses on the dynamic development and diachronic process of interactions, aligns with inductive logic by allowing researchers to derive theoretical patterns from empirical observations rather than testing predefined hypotheses. It is more helpful for researchers to capture the possibilities and heterogeneity of behaviors and outcomes [57]. Third, single case studies can be more useful for performing in-depth theoretical explorations. A longitudinal single-case study approach can take advantage of rich case data to be able to conduct an exploratory study and contribute to theory building through the in-depth deconstruction of those case data [10].

3.1. Research Object

The Dujiangyan Water Conservancy Project (DJY) was selected as the case object in this study. There are three reasons why this case was chosen. First, DJY, which lasted for more than 2000 years, is the only “alive” ancient large-scale ecological water conservancy project in China. It fully demonstrates the interactive evolution between the project system and the natural environment. This extreme feature helps to explore new phenomena and theories. Second, the long-term, sustainable operation provides a rich practical example for exploring paradoxical evolution and adaptive coping in the value creation process. Finally, the research team is located near the megaprojects and has a deeper understanding of functions, which is conducive to field investigation and research. At the same time, a close cooperative relationship has been established with the Sichuan Dujiangyan Water Conservancy Development Center (SDWCDC). Not only can we obtain internal non-public historical archives and management materials, but also it allows the research team to penetrate into the management department and conduct comprehensive interviews, which ensures the availability and authority of research data.

It was created between 276 BC and 251 BC1 and is a large-scale comprehensive water conservancy project that integrates multiple functions such as flood control, irrigation, navigation, and tourism. Different from modern dams, Dujiangyan does not completely block the flow of the river but regulates the water volume, achieving both flood control and irrigation. This megaproject consists of three main structures, namely the Fish Mouth Levee, the Flying Sand Weir, and the Bottle-Neck Channel (Figure 1), which scientifically solved the problems of automatic diversion and automatic discharge of sand from the Minjiang River. In 2000, DJY became part of the World’s Cultural Heritage and was listed in the World Heritage Irrigation Structures in 2018. To this day, it continues to create significant multiple economic, social, and cultural values.

3.2. Data Collection

In this study, there are three sources of data to collect information related to the survey (

Table 1. Data overview.

Data Source	Data Items	Number of Data Points
Historical records	Official history and local history	51 pages
	Travelogs; Poems	5 pages
	Monographs; Essays; Literature	13 documents
Project documents	Record of major events	426 events
	Introduction of project natural environment	77 pages
	Project structure document	78 pages
	Project management and institutional documents	60 pages
	Project benefits documents	61 pages
	Past administrators and their contributions	36
Interviews	Dujiangyan Water Conservancy Development Center	16,504 words
	Dongfeng Canal Management Office	11,302 words
	People’s Canal Management Office	7593 words
	Luban Reservoir Management Station	14,674 words
	Experts in water history and engineering	25,853 words
	Investigation of main canal system	43 pictures

): (1) Historical records, such as the historical chronicles that document the historical activities and temples, inscriptions, statues, and other artifacts left behind during the project’s operational process. (2) Project documents, which record the significant events of the project spanning over two thousand years, as well as changes in structures, technologies, irrigated area sizes, values, and other aspects. (3) In-depth interviews and participatory observations, such as the perceptions, actions, and outcomes of senior managers in the project. In addition, we also collect third-party data, such as official government reports, material heritage, etc., which are gathered to strengthen the evidence and achieve a triangular verification of the data [58].

The interviews in this study involved three stages.

Table 2. List of interviewees with their roles.

Number	Relevant Role	Expertise	Date of Interview
1	Director-level manager of the SDWCDC	30+ years; hydraulic engineering and water resource management.	10 December 2022; 16 March 2023; 8 September 2024
2	Director-level manager at the Planning Department of the SDWCDC	20+ years; grassroots agricultural water conservancy and large-scale irrigation area construction management.	10 December 2022; 16 March 2023; 8 September 2024
3	Director-level manager at the Water Supply Management Department of the SDWCDC	15+ years; water resource scheduling and management in the irrigation area.	10 December 2022; 16 March 2023; 8 September 2024
4	Director-level manager at Dujiangyan Water Culture and Irrigation Heritage Protection Office of the SDWCDC	35+ years; heritage protection and planning work in the irrigation area.	10 December 2022; 16 March 2023
5	Senior Engineer at the Dongfeng Canal Management Office	15+ years; channel maintenance and management practices; water resource allocation and management practices.	10 December 2022; 16 March 2023
6	Senior Engineer at the People’s Canal Management Office	15+ years; channel maintenance and management practices; water resource allocation and management practices.	10 December 2022
7	Senior Engineer at Luban Reservoir Management Station	15+ years; reservoir operation and maintenance; water resource allocation and management practices.	10 December 2022
8	University Professor at the School of History and Culture	45+ years; the Deputy Director of the Water History Committee of the Sichuan Water Conservancy Society.	29 October 2021
9	University Professor at the School of Water Resources and Hydropower	30+ years; specializing in research on hydraulic structure engineering and related hydromechanics.	29 October 2021
10	University Professor of Sichuan University	30+ years; Director of the River Research Institute, State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Development and Protection	29 October 2021

gives details of the participants’ profiles.

In stage 1, from October 2021 to December 2022, external experts’ interviews were conducted. We invited experts and scholars in the fields of hydraulics, history, and management to discuss the DJY from the objective perspectives of historical archeology, science, and technology. In stage 2, from January to October 2023, in-depth interviews and field investigation were conducted. At the overlapping stage of data collection and data analysis, we conducted a number of face-to-face public interviews with managers and engineers at different levels of the Dujiangyan Water Resources Development Center, management offices, stations, and reservoirs. We focused on project O&M dilemmas, responses, and value outcomes. Interviews with key personnel can assist us in establishing the link between paradoxical cognition and behaviors and outcomes. The richness and granularity of the data are supplemented by repeated iterations. In this investigative process, the interviewees are “knowledgeable agents”, and all have the opportunity to interpret the intentions and actions of the practical activities. In order to explore new concepts, we fully respect the original descriptions of the interviewees and do not impose existing structures or theories on them as prior knowledge to explain the behavior. At the same time, we carried out a field investigation of the operation of the canal, reservoir, and the power station and obtained first-line intuitive data. In stage 3, from November 2023 to February 2024. Once again, the field investigation of DJY, Erwang Temple, and other places2 was carried out to check the accuracy and perfection of the data.

3.3. Data Analysis

This study used the first-order/second-order structured data analysis methodology proposed by Gioia, which provides a systematic analytical process to build a dynamic, grounded theory model with “qualitative rigor” [59]. It can truthfully reflect the experience and background of the information provider while also meeting the scientific standards for systematic presentation of evidence.

With the help of the qualitative analysis software QSR NVivo 11, we formed a coding process that included 4 steps as follows:

Firstly, data preprocessing. Due to the long-time span of the research object, social forms and historical contexts have a strong influence on the research, and the historical data are recorded in classical Chinese (an ancient language). Therefore, data preprocessing and refinement are needed to ensure the standardization of the basic data and coding consistency of the process. We were assisted by historians, and the network translator translated the data directly into modern Chinese for further coding.

Secondly, open coding. The first stage is open coding, where we focused on identifying empirical categories (1st-order concepts) that described the types of paradoxes, coping strategies, and the value created through these practical activities. We first read through the case data and segmented them according to the key points of change in the value creation of DJY. To ensure that the 1st-order concepts accurately and comprehensively summarized the content of the primary materials, a three-member coding team was set up, including an internal manager from DJY (the provider of the primary materials) and two external researchers. The three members labeled the information independently. For disagreement, the results were validated through continuous discussion and searching of the original descriptive data, and only consensus was retained. Furthermore, to deal with the characteristics of data such as long time and multiple sources, we label the data before refining the 1st-order concepts. For example, the statement in the interview data, “Previously, water use was dominated by agriculture, but now water use for industry, ecology, and living is increasing rapidly”, was labeled as “rapid increase in water demand”. Subsequently, labels with the same meaning are categorized to obtain the 1st-order concept of “Rapid development of people’s livelihood”. Following this logic, we derived first-order concepts such as “The development of modern science and technology”, “Water shortage mitigation and pollution control”.

Thirdly, axial coding. The intrinsic relationships between 1st-order concepts were analyzed and aggregated into higher-level codes. This step aimed to unravel the complex relationships and logical structures within the data, forming 2nd-order themes. We analyzed the similarities, differences, and relationships among those concepts and merged similar ones into one theme. For example, we inductively generalized first-order concepts such as “The development of modern science and technology”, “Water shortage mitigation and pollution control”, and “Rapid development of people’s livelihood” into the thematic category of “From social to composite missions”. It summarizes the changing patterns of driving factors shown in the 1st-order concepts mentioned above. In this process, the coders focus on the researchers and pay special attention to new themes that lack support from existing theories, emphasizing whether they can explain the research questions [59]. If they can, they are retained.

Fourthly, selective coding. Core themes were identified, and other related themes and concepts were systematically connected to these core themes. In the process of coding the theoretical dimensions, we drew extensively on the literature on paradox, project value, and sustainability. Emerging themes were continually compared with theoretical perspectives so that these themes could be abstracted and distilled into theoretical dimensions. For example, from a macro-level perspective of demand-driven factors, we aggregated motivation-related themes into macro demand: mission-driven, reflecting how megaproject value is often rooted in the demand-driven needs of multiple stakeholders, including national security assurance and socio-economic development [6,12]. All of the above coding exercises were not a one-time event but rather an iterative cyclical process between original materials, labels, concepts, themes, dimensions, and related literature [59]. Similar 2nd-order themes were merged and refined to ultimately form a three-level data structure (

Table 3. Data Structure.

1st-Order Concepts	2nd-Order Themes	Aggregate Dimensions
Political–military dominance	From political to social mission	Macro demand: Mission-driven
Development of people’s livelihood
Rapid development of people’s livelihood	From social to composite missions
The development of modern science and technology
Water shortage mitigation and pollution control
Organizational tension: rigidity vs. flexibility of culture	Cultural paradox (meso)	Paradoxical cognition: Multi-level dynamics
Technical tension: tradition vs. innovation of technology	Technological paradox (micro)
Sustainable tension: development vs. conservation	Strategic paradox (macro)
Value tension: economic vs. ecological value
Relationship: nature worship	Reactive environmental adaptation (go with the natural flow)	Adaptive governance: Integrity of systems
Action: combine rigidity with flexibility
Relationship: following nature and responding to people
Action: institutional matching
Relationship: conquer nature to respect nature	Proactive regional co-creation (symbiotic governance)
Action: regional integration
Relationship: conquer nature to respect nature
Action: multiple coordination
Socio-economic value maintenance	Project–city–environment composite system	System evolution: Sustainable expansion
Sustained political value
Rapid expansion of socio-economic value	Project-city-environment-region complex giant system
Ecological value generation

).

Finally, model construction. The final stage is the building of an inductive model based on the above constructs to explain the practical phenomena or to answer the research question. Based on the dynamic equilibrium model developed by Smith and Lewis [22], we constructed a dynamic framework for the evolution of megaproject paradoxes in terms of drivers, types of paradox tensions, governance strategies, and outcomes.

4. Case Analysis

In order to thoroughly investigate the adaptive strategies of the value sustainability of megaprojects, we focused on the paradox evolution in the project activities as an explanatory lens. This part of the study divides the key phases of sustainable value creation in a time dimension. Guided by a “context-cognition-action” analytical framework, adaptive mechanisms within the paradox evolution perspective are further explored by analyzing the drivers that render latent tensions salient, the identification of paradox tensions, the governance strategies, and the outcome or impact on sustainable value. The ultimate goal was to reveal a new paradigm for long-time megaproject tensions, governance, and sustainability.

4.1. Key Phase in DJY Sustainable Value Development

A turning point in the development of the irrigated area in DJY was identified during data analysis (Figure 2). Based on this turning point, this study considered the process of sustainable value creation in two key phases: (1) the slow value development phase (276 BC–1948) and (2) the rapid value expansion phase (1949–present).

In the slow value development phase, DJY experienced the establishment, perfection, and long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) of the project system. According to the record of major events in DJY, the three basic structures of Fish Mouth Levee, Flying Sand Weir, and Bottle-Neck Channel were completed from 276 BC to 251 BC. Initially, the project’s functions of flood control, irrigation, and navigation were realized. Then, for more than 2000 years, the main activity of the actors was the maintenance of the project in order to guarantee the stable creation of value. Limited by the level of ancient technology, the value of this phase has been slowly developed and only reached 188,000 hectares in 1948. In the rapid value expansion phase, the irrigated area increased to 755,333 hectares in just seventy years, which is four times as much as in the previous phase. Technological and social productivity was unleashed during this period, and the ancient DJY also began to be vigorously restructured and renewed. The project’s ability to regulate and deliver water was further improved, creating greater socio-economic value for the Chengdu Plain and its surrounding hilly areas.

4.2. The Slow Value Development Phase

During its initial construction and maintenance, DJY’s value creation progressed slowly due to limited technological capabilities and low productivity. The project focused mainly on core functions like flood control and irrigation, laying a solid foundation for future development. Below, based on the “context-cognition-action” analytical frame, is an analysis of the evolution of paradoxes in this stage and ways to respond.

4.2.1. Macro Demand: From Political to Social Mission

From a macro perspective, the establishment of DJY can be traced back to a complex situation characterized by a specific natural and historical environment. On the one hand, in a long-standing farming civilization, humans’ dependence on water resources meant that eliminating floods and developing water conservancy were essential for agricultural survival. However, the unique geographical environment of the region has resulted in frequent floods and droughts in the Chengdu Plain, which pose significant challenges to the survival and development of the indigenous people. On the other hand, Qin3 (a state of ancient China) developed a political strategy to unify the six other major states. At that time, the feudal rulers of various states, in order to expand their own power in the struggle with their neighbors, were keen to make use of waterworks as an important new weapon. In 273 BC, Qin was at a strategic turning point of both arms and peace. Li Bing was appointed as the governor of Shu4 (a county of Qin) and led the creation of DJY in 251 BC. Its initial nature was to eliminate flooding and excavate canals, relocate the old main channel of the Min River, and establish Chengdu as a political and economic center. Therefore, the immediate reason for the establishment of DJY was a political mission, taking into account the needs of society and people’s livelihood.

After the completion of the project, the long-term social mission of the managers faced the double challenge of natural and social risks. On the one hand, DJY was still inevitably affected by floods. According to data of Minjiang River Floods through the Years (185 BC–1942 AD), incomplete statistics for 2127 years show that the Minjiang River averaged a catastrophic flood every 15 years, and on average a mega-flood occurred every 40 years. On the other hand, the change in dynasties in China over the past 2000 years had a great impact on social stability and productivity development. Especially during the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, the wars made a sharp decline in population, and the city was a desolate scene. The water conservancy project was basically abandoned, the weir fell into disrepair, and each reconstruction lasted for 20 years. Within this context, the main pressure for value creation in this phase of the DJY is the maintenance of the system’s function. In other words, at a low level of technology, it has to be maintained and expanded to meet long-lasting social and livelihood needs, as well as to respond to cyclical mega-floods that destroy it. From an evolutionary perspective, the value creation of DJY has shifted from being politically driven to being socially driven.

4.2.2. Paradoxical Cognition: From Cultural Paradox to Technological Paradox

(1)

Rigidity vs. Flexibility of Culture

Opposing yet interrelated dualities are embedded in the process of organizing and are brought into juxtaposition via environmental conditions [22]. Initially, the political mission prompted project managers and builders from different cultural backgrounds to form a project community. On the one hand, the team of managers was led by Li Bing, who was appointed by the Qin as governor of Shu; on the other hand, the team of workers was composed of indigenous peoples and other indigenous communities affected by the project. These participants determined that the construction of DJY was situated within a context of cultural diversity, represented by the Qin culture and the ancient Shu culture. The difference between the two cultures lies in the fact that Qin culture was grounded in the “profit-oriented” Qin Legal Code, embodying a rigid utilitarianism, whereas Shu, as a region of multi-ethnic integration, exhibited the characteristic flexibility of polytheistic worship and submission to nature. As a result, the combination of cultural diversity and political mission drivers activates the tension between institutional cultural rigidity and natural cultural flexibility and highlights it as a main contradiction and dilemma for organizational management. At the same time, constrained by the limited technological capabilities of the era, the high demands of project design rendered the technical requirements a secondary paradox. Nevertheless, ancient Shu had an extensive period to develop water management expertise. So, the integration and innovation of ancestral water management practices alleviated the technological paradox during the construction period to a degree.

(2)

Tradition vs. Innovation of Technology

After the completion of DJY, the demand for megaprojects shifted from a political mission to a long-term social mission but constrained by the limitations of social productivity and technical level, technological tradition and innovation at the project level evolved into a main tension. There is a long-term technological paradox in the O&M of megaprojects during the period of agricultural civilization, and the traditional techniques generated as a result also have major shortcomings, which make it difficult to adapt to the demands of maintenance of megaprojects under the frequent occurrence of floods. For instance, the ancient bamboo cage weir was unstable under the impact of the rapid flow of the Minjiang River, and the Inner River channels were still not immune to siltation. Since the Yuan Dynasty (1271), a debate has emerged between the “iron-and-stone reinforcement” method and the traditional “bamboo-cage” water management techniques. Some managers, recognizing the shortcomings of the cage-and-stone method—such as its lack of durability and the need for annual repairs—began experimenting with the “reinforced construction” approach to reduce the burden of yearly maintenance. For example, the Fish Mouth Levee, an easily damaged part of the megaproject, was subject to a number of modifications: JiDangPu cast an iron tortoise in front of the Fish Mouth Levee to suppress flooding in 1334; Shi Qianxiang constructed an iron ox in 1550, and so on. Historically, there have been many attempts to replace traditional technologies with innovative ones, all of which have been destroyed and sunk by floods within a few years to a few decades but have served as a catalyst for subsequent technological innovation practices.

4.2.3. Adaptive Governance: Reactive Environmental Adaptation

(1)

Inclusive Measures that Combine Rigidity with Flexibility

In addressing the tension of cultural paradox, the project participants adopt a combination of rigidity and flexibility to alleviate the tension between institutional culture and natural culture within the project construction environment. Cultural external embedding and integration based on an adaptive perspective represent behavioral adjustments made by external management teams to adapt to indigenous culture [60,61], thereby gaining legitimacy and identity recognition [62]. Qin and Shu have a common characteristic: the importance of yin-yang, advocating the harmony and unity between humans and nature. Through this, Li Bing vigorously relied on the Shu culture of religious consciousness, myths, and legends to call, organize, and encourage indigenous people to participate in water conservancy construction. For example, when surveying the site of the weir, he declared that he had seen a god and then built three temples and performed rituals along the river to solemnly worship the relevant gods believed in by the indigenous people in order to show the indigenous people that he was in harmony with the god and that the building of the project had been permitted by the god. This measure of flexible action established his identity in the minds of the indigenous people: the leader of the heavenly mandate. At the same time, he also took advantage of the advanced productive forces represented by iron tools and the rigid culture of the Qin law system and advocated pragmatic action measures that transformed flexibility into rigidity.

The combination of ‘dredging and blocking’ fully embodies the scientific water management ideas and yin-yang culture of ancient China, reflecting an inclusive strategy of interdependence and transformation between humans and nature, weakening the multicultural antagonism in project and giving full play to the complementary role of the duality of culture—rigidity and flexibility.

(2)

Complementary Measures for Institutional Matching

The unique institutional and cultural project formed by inclusive measures provides a foundation for compensating for technical gaps and thereby alleviating the tension between tradition and innovation caused by technological paradox. The collective action model organized by key leaders is able to respond quickly to the project maintenance needs. The success of collective action in the DJY in history has mostly been characterized by the extraordinary qualities of the individual leaders, a characteristic of the “key few” that can be summarized as collective action leadership. Although group consciousness or self-organization played an equally important role in the irrigation systems of Eastern societies, the decisive role of key individual leaders in decision-making, organization, and leadership is commonly found in the rich historical literature. For example, during the Three Kingdoms period (220–280 AD), Zhuge Liang established a specialized management agency, which strengthened the professional management power of DJY; during the Tang (618–907 AD) and Song (960–1279 AD) dynasties, DJY was overseen by county magistrates, with additional supervision from military governors and inspection commissioners who directed its maintenance.

In addition, the rapid restoration of the project in a non-stable environment has benefited from standardized management. The annual maintenance mechanism and management organization are basically formed and have good results, so the management inheritance of the future generations always has two main lines running through it. Firstly, unified management. The organizational structure has gradually changed from local administrative management to the establishment of a professional management agency: the head and the trunk canal system are under the responsibility of the professional management agency, the branch canals are managed by the local management, and the branch canals below the mouth are managed by the masses in a democratic manner, and the following branch canals are managed by the masses democratically. Secondly, standardized operation. Over the long term, a series of management experiences, procedures, and guidelines were summarized, such as the “Three-Character Classic”, “Six-Character Formula”, and “Eight-Character Motto”, etc. These are concise, straightforward, and easy to understand, facilitating both the adherence by successive generations of managers and the compliance by ordinary laborers. The organizational structure and standardized institutional development play a complementary role to the low level of maintenance technology and, to some degree, relieve the tension between technological tradition and innovation.

4.2.4. System Evolution: Project–City–Environment Composite System

With the alleviation of the technological paradox at the micro level and the cultural paradox at the meso level, DJY has gradually transformed into a Project–City–Environment composite system. The system exhibits the open characteristics of continuation, expansion, and interdependence of environmentally friendly socio-economic, political–military, and other values.

In terms of socio-economics, DJY has experienced ups and downs with the development of the city since its creation, and the development of the irrigation area has followed the artesian irrigation method, intertwined with the natural river to build a tree-like structure of irrigation canals, forming a large-scale irrigation system with complete functions, and creating the “Tianfu Grain Silo”. The Minjiang River’s good water quality for washing and pigmentation gave birth to the world-famous Shu brocade, and Chengdu became the starting point of the Southern Silk Road. During the Han and Tang dynasties, Chengdu was an important distribution center for grain, timber, silk, and other commodities in the southwestern region.

In addition, in political–military terms, it has shaped the course of Chinese history at several critical moments. In times of peace, the irrigation area became part of the support of the state power with its strong tax output; in times of war, it became a strategic place of refuge and rejuvenation for the Central Plains civilization. For example, during the Three Kingdoms period of China, Liu Bei relied on Shu and established the regime for 44 years.

In general, during the growth period, the era of agricultural civilization was highly dependent on the natural environment, and the socio-economic and ecological environments of the city were interdependent for a long time and supported the demand for macro-level political–military values in different periods.

4.3. The Rapid Value Expansion Phase

As society developed and demand diversified, Dujiangyan entered a stage of rapid value expansion. The emergence of multiple demands elevated the value creation paradox from the technical and organizational levels to the strategic level. As a key megaproject of the Chengdu Plain, value creation needs to balance short-term needs with long-term sustainability, achieving multiple value expansion and continuous development in the new era. Below, based on the “context-cognition-action” analytical frame, is an analysis of the evolution of paradoxes in this stage and ways to respond.

4.3.1. Macro Demand: From Social to Composite Missions

After 1949, the people becoming masters of the country greatly unleashed their productivity. Coupled with modern technological productivity, the demands for megaprojects were no longer limited to meeting basic livelihood and slow development. At this time, the motivation for value creation in DJY evolved to meet the rapidly growing political, economic, social, cultural, and ecological composite missions. Diverse stakeholder demands drive multiple value creation in megaprojects [30]. Since 1951, the gradual construction of import gates, control gates, and pivot gates for main and branch canals, along with large, medium, and small “storage-irrigation” projects in a “vine-melons” pattern, has rapidly increased the amount of water supplied and enlarged the irrigated area. Under such circumstances, the diverse and rapidly growing demands were greatly met. However, the proportion of DJY’s quoted water has broken the traditional “40–60%” division rule in a short period of time, laying the groundwork for the emergence of strategic paradox.

4.3.2. Paradoxical Cognition: Nested Strategic Paradox

Under the influence of complex environmental factors such as rapidly surging demand and rapid advancements in technology, the micro-level, singular technological paradox has transformed into a multi-layered, nested strategic paradox.

(1)

Development vs. Conservation

The tension between conservation and development has transitioned from the micro level to the macro level, exhibiting highly confrontational characteristics, and has become the main paradox faced by government-led managers. The main water source of DJY, the Minjiang River, has shown a declining trend in water inflow. In the 1930s, the annual average runoff was 17.41 billion cubic meters, but after entering the 21st century, the incoming water of the Minjiang River has dropped sharply, with an average of 13.3 billion cubic meters from 2002 to 2006. Excluding inbound water, the local runoff water production in the region is only 461 cubic meters per capita, and the level of water resources is only equivalent to that of water-scarce areas of northern China. In recent years, due to the continuous expansion of irrigated areas, mostly for flood irrigation, there has been a substantial increase in water demand. Additionally, considering the pollution of water resources, the amount of available water will be even lower than this figure, making it a water-scarce region. Whether as a World Cultural Heritage site or a megaproject, DJY should be effectively protected. Obviously, water scarcity has become a factor that activates the tension between conservation, evolving it into the main contradiction in current management.

(2)

Economic vs. Ecological Value

Under the influence of the strategic paradox between development and conservation, conflicts between ecological protection and economic development and other multiple values have emerged and continue to intensify. With the continuous development of the economy and the acceleration of urbanization, the environmental water demand in Chengdu has increased rapidly. In 2002, DJY supplied 30 million cubic meters of water to the Funan River, which increased to 180 million cubic meters in 2004 and exceeded 300 million cubic meters in 2005. However, the huge economic development has brought serious damage to the ecology at the same time. The situation of soil and water conservation in the DJY irrigation district is not optimistic. In the upper reaches of the Minjiang River, due to the destruction of forest vegetation, topsoil erosion is very serious. Both in the water conservation area of the Minjiang River and the water-using areas of the irrigation district, soil erosion has shown an increasing trend year by year, resulting in aggravated debris flows, landslides, and floods and droughts. If not controlled, the consequences could be catastrophic. The object of the main contradiction in water management has shifted from “the people’s demand for eliminating water hazards and developing water conservancy” to “the people’s demand for water resources, water ecology, and water environment”.

The enhancement of partial interests leading to the detriment of overall value and the pursuit of short-term gains resulting in long-term losses are typical manifestations of value co-destruction. At present, the reservoir power stations and counter-regulation reservoirs upstream of the canal head have played significant roles in flood control, sediment retention, and power generation. However, they have greatly diminished the functional requirements of the ancient weir canal head, such as flood control, automatic water diversion, and sediment discharge, while also damaging the biodiversity of the downstream Minjiang River channel. This has, to a certain extent, affected the “ecological project model of water diversion without dams” of the DJY. The benefits are clearly economic, while the costs include the gradual loss of some heritage functions of the ancient weir canal head and long-term damage to the river ecosystem, which is difficult to restore. Furthermore, manager AL mentioned, “The demand for water in production and daily life is increasing, but there is a bottom line for ecological flow”. The expanding demand for water in agriculture, industry, and daily life is increasingly encroaching on the ecological water use of natural rivers and cities, posing a dilemma for the construction of Chengdu’s park city. The reason for this is that overemphasizing one of the opposing sides of the paradox will lead to a so-called vicious cycle [22]. Over time, this will ultimately result in the overall degradation of multiple values. Currently, the strategic dilemma changes and tension leap essentially stem from the conflict between the long-term needs of ecological civilization and the short-term needs of industrial civilization.

4.3.3. Adaptive Governance: Proactive Co-Creation

Based on the macro development trend, the symbiotic governance model, characterized by government-led collaboration among the government, society, the market, and the public, plays a pivotal role in the decision-making and governance process of megaprojects. Non-synergistic resource misuse is an important cause of value co-destruction [63]. According to the short-board effect of the barrel theory, past project technological limitations, which were the short boards, have evolved into long boards through technological advancements that “conquer nature”. Meanwhile, the long boards of past projects, institutional and culture, have turned into short boards. The rapid development of regional economies has intensified the supply–demand contradiction, driving engineering communities to over-rely on technological factors while neglecting the role of “soft” governance elements such as culture and management. This has led to a more pronounced short-board effect and increased non-synergistic effects, resulting in value co-destruction. The project participants should adopt a dynamic, holistic mindset to understand the tension between conservation and development caused by long-term and short-term demand changes. By transforming partial synergy into overall synergy, non-collaborative effects can be blocked, ensuring a sustained process and outcome of value co-creation.

The issue of water scarcity is increasingly constraining the high-quality development of Chengdu. Consequently, the government has initiated various measures, including the “Diverting Water from Dadu River to Minjiang River” project, regional integration of water resources such as water rights trading, and water-saving projects like wastewater treatment plants. These efforts combine technology, culture, and market mechanisms to address the problem. As managers stated:

“Through pilot water rights trading, water saved from agricultural use can be converted into ecological water for environmental beautification.”

“The entire region’s gates, channels, and canal systems are managed through informatization to utilize water more effectively; public awareness campaigns are conducted via official accounts, television, and newspapers to promote water conservation.”

It can be seen that creating a water-saving irrigation district is a huge, long-term work; government-led governance is playing the role of cultural guidance and market regulation. Through long-term and proactive symbiotic governance of dynamic balancing strategies to respond to the challenges of multiple value conflicts, to ensure that the megaproject is “alive” in the long term.

4.3.4. System Evolution: Project–City–Environment–Region Complex Giant System

With the reconciliation of strategic paradox tensions at the macro level, DJY has evolved into a complex giant system integrated with the surrounding cities, environment, and region. DJY’s effectively irrigated area expanded to become the largest in the country within just over seventy years, several times more than the sum of more than 2000 years of historical development. In 1993, the actual irrigated area of the irrigation district covered 40 beneficiary counties and districts in seven cities, including Chengdu, Deyang, Mianyang, and Suining. From the upstream, the Zipingpu Reservoir Power Station, completed in 2006, has greatly reduced the frequency of mega-floods for the main projects of DJY. Considering the downstream, the cities, environment, and region surrounding the project form an integrated system, providing water for production, daily life, and ecological needs to nearly one-third of Sichuan’s population. Over the past thirteen years (2008–2020), agricultural water use has decreased from 5.56656 billion cubic meters to 4.81018 billion cubic meters, while domestic water use has increased steeply from 530.08 million cubic meters to 1.39229 billion cubic meters, and water use for ecology and landscaping in cities expanded from 1250.36 million cubic meters to 1936.95 million cubic meters.

As a result, the economic, political, and social value of DJY has reached unprecedented heights. Integrated governance measures are now playing a crucial role in regulating the symbiotic relationship between the project, city, and environment, balancing short-term interests with long-term holistic benefits, and avoiding the risk of falling into a vicious cycle in the long run.

5. Conceptual Framework and Discussion

Based on the empirical analysis of the DJY, this study examines how key stakeholders in megaprojects deal with the persistent paradoxes that arise during construction and O&M and how they create value. Then, the logical framework method and process models are primarily employed to analyze the evolutionary process of paradox tensions, characteristics of adaptive governance strategies, and dynamic model of system evolution. This process aims to provide a unique lens from the perspective of paradox, offering an explanatory framework for how megaprojects achieve sustainable value.

5.1. Framework of Sustainable Value Creation in Megaprojects from the Perspective of Paradox Evolution

Building on an analysis of three distinct types of paradoxes, this research establishes an evolutionary framework to elucidate the process of sustainable value creation in megaprojects. “Macro Demand–Paradoxical Cognition–Adaptive Governance” is an efficient pathway for value creation under dynamic contexts. Specifically, project participants should respond to changes in macro-demands and external environments, identify technological, cultural, and strategic paradox tensions, and then adopt reactive or proactive governance strategies to achieve system sustainability. As illustrated in Figure 3.

5.1.1. The Multi-Level Tensions of Megaprojects

(1) Cultural paradox. The culture of creators of megaprojects comes from the community, and the participation of multiple stakeholders determines cultural diversity [64]. The dialectical influence of cultural duality of rigidity and flexibility on organizational performance and value is evident [65]. Cultural rigidity refers to the widespread internal recognition of organizational values and behavioral norms, fostering consistency in individual and organizational behavior. Cultural flexibility, on the other hand, enables organizations to adapt to environmental changes and maintain high levels of organizational performance. However, when the organizational environment changes, the inertia and resistance characteristics exhibited by institutional rigidity can inhibit cultural flexibility, impeding organizational change and performance. Meanwhile, during large-scale projects, cultural flexibility lacking institutional guidance can manifest chaos and disorder, hindering value creation. Whether this tension leads to a virtuous or vicious cycle hinges significantly on managers’ cognition and actions.

(2) Technological paradox. The technological paradox tensions of exploration and exploitation is widely discussed in relation to sustainability [66,67]. Temporary and one-time characteristics of megaproject organizations often lead to the oversight of the inherent technological paradox between tradition and innovation. With the continuous O&M, once human beings have formed some mature theoretical and empirical knowledge in activities, a certain tradition can be formed through channels and mechanisms such as information transfer, knowledge exchange, experience inheritance, and culture accumulation. In the wake of continuously changing needs and external environments, the stability of inheritance and the change in innovation are often in conflict [68]. In particular, megaprojects are required to safeguard the needs of society and people’s livelihoods, which emphasizes the importance of healthy and stable development of technology.

(3) Strategic paradox. The strategic paradox tensions represent a conflict between short-term and long-term interests. The intensifying contradictions between human civilization and natural resources, as well as ecological environments, raise a critical question for projects closely tied to the environment: should they continue to be developed to meet ever-growing demands, or should conservation take precedence? This dilemma exacerbates the clash among multiple values, particularly between economic and ecological priorities. These challenges impose new demands on the sustainability of megaprojects’ values. In the long run, megaprojects should no longer focus solely on economic growth and innovation efficiency but should also serve as expressions of public value, actively assuming corresponding social responsibilities. Moreover, their long-term operation necessitates that value sustainability encompass not only intra-generational social and environmental equity but also intergenerational obligations under resource constraints. This means adhering to the principles of sustainable development, which aim to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

5.1.2. Evolution Process of Paradox Tensions

From the process perspective, the sustainable adaptability of megaproject values encompasses four processes: macro demand, paradoxical cognition, adaptive governance, and system evolution. Prior research focused on types of paradoxes and coping strategies during static periods [22,45]. This study is based on the dynamic equilibrium model of paradox management [22]. In the initial phase, specific factors can trigger latent tensions to be salient. As demand-oriented projects, megaprojects often experience differing needs among various stakeholders at different times, which serves as a critical trigger. Moreover, the demands of megaprojects frequently exhibit mission-driven characteristics such as maintaining social stability, promoting economic growth, and ensuring national security [6,30]. Under the influence of these triggers, paradox tensions of varying dimensions and types may simultaneously emerge. The management team actively integrated the cultural conflicts and borrowed the advantages of different cultures to alleviate the technical problems in the case. This highlights that thinking and identifying core tension is a crucial aspect of management practice, as it dictates the evolution and resolution of other tensions, thereby enhancing the efficiency of resource allocation. It is worth noting that managing tension does not mean controlling or eliminating it, but rather coping with, channeling, or utilizing tensions [69]. The strategy of “go with the natural flow” exemplifies the “both/and” thinking pattern by harmonizing the dialectical relationship between cultural flexibility and institutional rigidity. They fostered consensus among diverse stakeholders rather than relying solely on institutional discipline. This cognitive divergence directly results in different coping strategies and project outcomes. Therefore, there is a significant interrelationship among the framework for paradoxical cognition, strategy selection, and the system evolution. Unlike existing research on megaproject paradoxes that focuses on identification [23,53], this paper’s process model highlights causes and consequences, which are crucial for driving paradox evolution and system sustainability.

From the evolution perspective, the sustainability of diverse values in megaprojects depends on the cross-stage and multi-level evolution of paradoxes and adaptive governance. Management scholars have increasingly simplified the intricate, often messy phenomena of paradox; however, oversimplifying complex realities can foster reductionist and incomplete theories and cannot capture the intricacies of paradox [38]. The complex inter-dependencies and mutually reinforcing relationships between opposing elements of paradoxes, which this study focuses on, form the basis for a virtuous cycle in paradox management. In other words, the process described above is not a one-time event but rather an iterative transformation. After tensions are alleviated within a certain period, value is created. This value outcome then becomes the triggering context for the next iteration, promoting the evolution of paradox and initiating a new round of adaptive governance. It is this cycle that leads to the realization of a leap in value. Specifically, during the construction process, the tension arising from cultural diversity among multiple stakeholders emerges as the primary contradiction, driven by political mission, while technological paradox at the micro-level serves as secondary contradictions. Through the managers’ balanced cognition of rigidity and flexibility, as well as their combined actions of guiding and controlling strategies, the Project–City–Environment composite system of is delivered. As the project gradually expands, technological paradoxes driven by the mission of improving people’s livelihoods become the primary contradiction. To alleviate the tension between tradition and innovation, institutional matching is employed to compensate for low-level technological deficiencies. With the rapid development of technology, resource scarcity gradually intensifies the contradiction between supply and demand, activating the tension between conservation and development within the project. This tension escalates from the micro-level to the macro-level, emerging as the primary tension and triggering nested tensions between ecological and economic values. The transitional and stabilizing strategy of localized development with a priority on protection has evolved into a holistic strategy of regional integration and multivariate coordination. Consequently, the regional giant system achieves a leap in development and sustainability. The above-mentioned process vividly illustrates the scientific nature of paradoxical thinking patterns in solving holistic problems.

The above process analysis reveals that paradoxical cognition presents multi-level and dynamic characteristics over the long term from an evolutionary perspective, enriching the complexity studies of paradoxical cognition. Existing studies have explored the effects of actors’ different cognitive frames [21,70] and cognitive processes [21] on management outcomes and have pointed out that paradoxical cognition may be spurred by contextual variables [22], leading to the complexity of cognitive frames [71]. Nevertheless, insufficient attention is paid to the in-depth exploration of the connotations of paradoxical cognition over the long term. Based on the paradoxical thinking patterns and identifying core tensions, this research reveals the multi-level and dynamic characteristics of paradoxical cognition over the long term. Specifically, paradoxical cognition uncovers multi-level tensions (macro, meso, micro) in value creation, with a complex shift from a single-layer to a nested structure as macro demands intensify. The following section will continue to explore the adaptive strategies for the complexity of paradoxical cognition.

5.2. Characteristics of Adaptive Strategies for Sustainable Value in Megaprojects

Management paradox has evolved into a shared responsibility among top managers and across organizational levels [44]. Adaptive strategies exhibit distinct logic: reactive strategies align with “go with the natural flow”, while proactive strategies emphasize “symbiotic governance”. This shift drives the evolution from the “Project–City–Environment” composite system to the “Project–City–Environment–Region” complex giant system. At different stages, management strategies exhibit unique adaptive characteristics (as detailed in

Table 4. Characteristics of adaptive strategies.

Attribute	Evolution Trend: From Openness to Organicity
	Project–City–Environment Composite System		Project–City–Environment–Region Complex Giant System
Strategy	Reactive: inclusiveness and complementation		Proactive: coordination and symbiosis
Organization	Government-led Community participation	Government-led Community sharing	Government-led Community autonomy	Government-led Multi-collaboration
Trigger	Diversity	Intensity	Change	Scarcity
Tension	Element’s conflict		Value’s conflict
relationship	Nature worship	Conform to nature	Conquer nature	Respect nature
Sustainability	Value maintenance		Value win-win

), reflecting the dynamic interplay between competing demands and evolving organizational contexts.

Vertically, the different attributes of the same development phase have a holistic nature and together constitute the strategy connotation. The type of triggering factors determines the conflict nature of the tension. Meanwhile, the perception of the relationship between humans and nature shapes the management strategies adopted by decision-makers, thereby creating corresponding sustainable value. During the slow development phase of value, the diversity of elements and changes in their embeddedness lead to paradoxes rooted in the opposition and conflict between value-creating elements. Government-led managers need to integrate diverse cultural and technological elements, fostering complementary advantages between institutional culture and natural culture, as well as between technological tradition and innovation, to achieve the creation and long-term maintenance of functional value. In the rapid expansion phase of value, the scarcity of elements triggers value conflicts. To address this contradiction, the collaboration and symbiosis of multiple stakeholders are built on a foundation of respect for nature, thereby achieving win-win value creation.

Horizontally, the same attribute in different development phases has variability, showing the adaptive characteristics of the mechanism. From the slow to rapid value expansion phases, megaproject organizations have always maintained the stability characteristics of government-led decision-making, while other stakeholders have gone through an increase in initiative from participation, sharing, autonomy, and synergy. The organizational structure has evolved from a group pattern to a network pattern. There is a close correlation between the evolution of the triggers and the human–nature relationship. Changes in the technological environment have enabled humans to shift from adapting to nature to conquering it. However, the continued exploitation of nature has led to resource scarcity, prompting a further evolution in the human–nature relationship from conquest to respect. Correspondingly, with the cognitive shift, coping strategies have been elevated from reactive coping to proactive governance. Ultimately, the sustainability of value has risen from simple maintenance to an emphasis on high quality and efficiency, achieving a win-win outcome. This is a gradual process of value sustainability that cannot be rushed.

On the whole, megaproject has higher public attributes, so the key role of government leadership and the necessity of introducing market mechanisms should be emphasized. The ternary role of government leadership, cultural selection, and market regulation should be actively leveraged to achieve the goal of improving quality and efficiency and to avoid the negative effects of value co-destruction caused by the gradually emerging inertial cognition of using something daily without realizing its importance.

5.3. Dynamic Model for the Systems Sustainability

The evolution of responsibility is the core driver of system sustainability, characterized by a transition from intragenerational equity to intergenerational obligations driven by technological advancements. From the perspective of sustainable development, the dynamic model for the sustainability of megaproject value includes internal driving forces arising from the evolution of responsibility tension, as well as external driving forces among different stakeholders. These forces collectively constitute a durable propulsion model characterized by mutual promotion and constraints, as illustrated in Figure 4. The “Two Forces” model in megaprojects clarifies the importance of the endogenous drive of responsibility for the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature from the perspective of system dynamics.

The core of the “two-force” model consists of the evolution of project paradoxes under the combined effects of six elements: nature, society, technology, politics, management, and economy. This includes the cultural paradox driven by nature, society, and politics; the technological paradox driven by society, technology, and management; and the strategic paradox driven by technology, economy, and nature. Correspondingly, the cultural paradox demonstrates the responsibility conflict between managers and the workers, i.e., the relationship between people. The technological paradox focuses on the responsibility conflict of engineers, i.e., the relationship between people and megaprojects, and the strategic paradox represents a higher level of responsibility conflict—the relationship between humans and nature. Thus, the evolutionary kernel of the megaprojects’ paradox is a change in the tension of responsibilities. For example, environmental justice, social justice, etc., have now shifted from intragenerational to intergenerational responsibilities.

Furthermore, the responsibility tensions underscore the interdependent nature of the system’s objectives to achieve sustainable value and help stakeholders to obtain a deeper understanding of the SDGs. For instance, the goal of governance of conflicting responsibilities—such as economic efficiency (SDG 8) versus environmental justice (SDG 15)—requires strategic alignment with the SDGs’ framework to reduce opportunistic practices and harmonize value creation efforts.

6. Conclusions and Contribution

Megaprojects are critical undertakings aimed at generating long-term economic benefits and social welfare for a wide array of stakeholders. However, their inherent complexity and persistent tensions render them susceptible to significant value loss. This study takes an initial step toward understanding how stakeholders can navigate paradox tensions during construction and O&M to sustain and create value. Through an in-depth analysis of the DJY, the research identifies multiple layers of paradoxes that emerged over the project’s evolution: technological paradox at the micro level, cultural paradox at the meso level, and strategic paradoxes at the macro level. These paradox tensions illustrate structural progression from simplicity to nested complexity. In response, the dynamic interplay between the project and its environment drove the diversified evolution of project organization, resulting in adaptive strategies that transitioned from reactive adaptation to proactive co-creation. These strategies facilitated the transformation from a Project–City–Environment composite system to a Project–City–Environment–Region complex giant system, ultimately generating enhanced socio-economic value on a larger scale.

This study offers several significant theoretical contributions. It constructs a multi-level, cross-stage dynamic adaptability framework for the sustained co-creation of value in megaprojects from the perspective of paradox. This framework enhances the understanding of the relationship between paradox and sustainability in megaprojects by introducing a dynamic perspective, trying to address a gap in existing research that has predominantly focused on static and short-term analyses [6,21,39]. The findings from this study demonstrate that sustainable value creation in megaprojects relies on transitioning from traditional approaches of control, decision-making, and static solutions to a dynamic and ongoing “coping” process. Paradox evolution is shown to exhibit multi-level dynamic characteristics at the micro, meso, and macro levels, with adaptive strategies reflecting the holistic and interconnected nature of project systems.

Additionally, the relationship between humans and nature and paradoxical cognition in megaprojects is analyzed through characteristics of adaptive strategies, expanding research on the transition from management to governance in our study. As Prigogine discussed, the research perspective emphasizing dynamism, holism, and interconnections reflects the unique Chinese cultural perspective on the human–nature relationship. Based on the stages of construction, stability, rapid expansion, and re-stabilization, this study interprets the holism of paradox evolution and coping strategies from multiple dimensions. These findings emphasize respecting the intrinsic value of the natural environment and the positive interaction between humans and nature. They shift the focus from the instrumental value of nature in meeting humans’ needs to considering the intrinsic value of the natural environment, breaking through the limitations of project management in theoretical research on value creation in megaprojects and emphasizing the holistic scope of project governance.

Moreover, the introduction of a dynamic model offers a novel lens for interpreting the theoretical foundations of the SDGs. The model explores the evolution of project paradoxes through systemic harmony, revealing that implicit responsibility tension is the core driver of system sustainability. By examining the interaction of six key elements and the coordination of multiple stakeholders, the study provides a unique perspective on sustainable development, drawing from an ancient Chinese project that harmonized humans and natural systems. Existing research explains the emergence of tensions from the perspective of stakeholder conflicts [49]; this study further reveals the nature of conflicts from the perspective of responsibility tensions and shifts the focus from “human-to-human” governance to a more holistic “humans-to-nature” system governance.

In terms of practical significance, it is reflected in several key aspects as follows. For advancing the sustainable development of megaprojects, project managers should emphasize the ecological value principle of “priority to the whole, compensation for the parts”. For example, governments should integrate top-down institutional design (e.g., tax incentives, fiscal subsidies for long-cycle infrastructure) with market-driven mechanisms (e.g., water rights trading platforms, interregional resource pricing) to balance ecological protection and economic efficiency. Concurrently, urban decision-makers must treat environmental carrying capacity as a non-negotiable constraint, fostering project-city synergy through platforms for ecological resource transformation and multi-agent collaboration. These approaches, combining planning of moderately advancing infrastructure investment with horizontal compensation mechanisms, enable systemic alignment of industrial growth, resource allocation, and ecological resilience, ultimately driving regionally equitable and sustainable outcomes.

We also acknowledge potential limitations. As a single, typical case study, our findings have limitations on their external validity and coverage of the full process of collecting data within a long-term period. Future studies could incorporate newly discovered historical materials to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the case. Additionally, the research focus is confined to infrastructure projects. Future work could expand to scientific projects with innovative attributes to further enrich and enhance the universality of the theoretical frameworks and mechanisms proposed in this study.