This survey research aims to assess the potential, the role and the requirements of local administration authorities in planning and implementing tourism. The methods used include documentary reviews, interviews, and group discussions. Responses to questionnaires from 432 executives of 144 local administration authorities in Chiangrai Province were analyzed by using frequency, percentage, average, standard deviation and Chi-Square test. It is concluded that, in terms of planning, the organizations have potential in all aspects with the highest potential in structure, laws and strategies, budgeting, and leadership, followed by potential in networking and other supports. In terms of tourism management, the organizations have lower potential. They have moderate potential in four aspects, including leaders’ vision of tourism, preparedness of organization’s personnel in working with communities and cooperating with people’s in community development. Their potential in other aspects are in the lower and lowest ranges. In terms of their roles in tourism management, it is found that they cover all aspects of tourism management but in a limited way. The organizations have most role in managing natural, and cultural tourist places and organizing tourism activities. The organizations have the least role in managing tourist service such as transport and other services. In terms of the requirement for tourism planning and strategy, the organizations need to develop local people and conservation the most. Among the participatory strategies, the organizations weigh people participation over leaders and groups/clubs. The organizations expect support from the governmental agencies the most, especially the Tourism Authority of Thailand and Provincial Recreation, Sports and Tourism Center. The management system favoured the most is a joint committee, especially in the early years. A comparison of responses from different scales of the organizations including the provincial/ municipal/ tambon levels show that there is no significant difference. A comparison of responses from different levels of respondents including high, middle and low level executives has no significant difference.