The general purpose of the research presented in this thesis is to theoretically and empirically consider different models of urban governance based on the example of the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Particular attention is given to the opportunities and barriers to integrated urban governance with a focus on participation. The research engages with different theoretical approaches with the intention to have a holistic approach to the subject of research. The typology of urban governance developed by DiGaetano and Strom (2003) is utilized for the analysis and interpretation of types of governance present in the environmental sector of the City of Zagreb. Specifically with regard to integrated governance, the research encompasses horizontal integration – as a dimension of integrated governance – and particularly its two aspects: a) the dimension of integrated urban governance which implies more intensive and enhanced cooperation and coordination between formal actors within the city administration; and b) informal actors’ participation in the decision making process and the process of creating public policies. The coordination of formal actors’ is interpreted through public policies coordination theory by way of adopting successive levels of coherence implementation when shaping public policies as developed by Peters (2004). Metcalfe’s (1994) approach to the analysis of public policies capacity coordination is also utilized as a diagnostic tool with the aim of determining the level of cooperation among the different city offices within the environment sector. With regard to capturing the participation of informal actors, the study utilizes Arnstein’s (1969) typology of the level of participation, as well as the one-way and two-way classification of participation methods developed by Anokye (2013). In the context of this study, the redistribution of power between formal and informal actors is conveyed as a struggle between formal actors being in the position of power, and informal actors who through their activities question the boundaries and distribution of power. The research was designed as a case study of urban governance in the City of Zagreb. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted, and relevant legal and strategic documents were analyzed. The research has identified a hybrid governance model, more precisely, a corporate-clientelist model of urban governance. The governance model’s specificities are reflected in the informal actors’ distrust of local level administration, further emphasized through the conviction that the local administration relies on a clientelist agenda, lack of responsibility, and sectorial and pyramidical system of governance whereby the power resides in the highest echelons of city government. The highlighted findings are contrary to the model of integrated governance that presupposes empowerment through a positive context of “power with” (Gaventa, 2009), through cooperation and consensus, partnership and collective actions. The coordination of examined city offices within the sector of environment is categorized, according to Peters (2004), as the lowest level of negative coordination, and, according to Metcalfe (1994), on the fourth level, which also represents negative coordination, given the noted shortcomings: overlaps in activities conducted and specifically lack of adequate levels of coordinating activities and projects (lack of structured coordination), lack of communication (different information, different visions, different and disconnected activities, lack of an adequate database to be used by all offices and sectors), both within offices and sectors (lack of adequate horizontal coordination) as well as between sectors (lack of adequate inter-sectorial coordination), but in relation to the civil sector (with regard to programs and activities of common interest). Finally, the level of participation in the environment sector, in accordance with Arnstein’s participation gradation, falls into the category of tokenism. Overall, citizens are not encouraged to assume active roles in the local administration’s decision-making process or realize partnerships with formal actors. Based on Anokye’s (2013) classification of participation methods, the study identifies the dominance of one-way participation methods and a handful of two-way participation methods in the tokenism category. This points to an instrumental approach (Hordijk, 2015) to the participation of informal actors’, who, although involved in the decision-making process, are not equal to political actors. Drawing on Arnstein’s (1969) understanding of power, the study illustrates, on one hand, power as asymmetrical (centralized) and hierarchical (subordination of majority, command of minority), characterized by the concentration of power at the top of the local government structure (Mayor’s office), which, in turn, creates a feeling of helplessness both among certain formal as well as informal actors. On the other hand, the study results illustrate that power can also be understood as a process which is exemplified with instances of cooperation between actors showing that informal actors when achieving a higher level of participation bring established hierarchies into question. However, this is strictly reserved for partnership, and not for the delegated power or citizen control which are ranked by Arnstein as the highest levels of citizens’ power.