1IASP, QRPTA. XIX IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks [ A ]. International Association of Science Parks[ C]. Quebec, Canada, 2002. 9.
2European Commission. European Innovation Scoreboard 2007: Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance [R]. European Communities, Italy, 2008. 15.
3European Commission. Efficiency of Innovation Policies in High Technology Sectors in Europe [ R ]. European Communities, Belgium, 2003. 12.
4Degroof, Jean- Jacques, Edward B. Robert. Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructures for Academic Spin - off Ventures [ R ]. WP, MIT Industrial Performance Sector, 2004. 4.
5Philip Cooke. From technopoles to regional innovation systems: the evolution to regional innovation systems: the evolution of localised technology development policy [ J]. Canadian Journal of Regional Science. 2001 , ⅩⅩⅣ: Ⅰ (Spring/Printemps). 21 -40.
6Peter Lindelof, Hans Lofsten. Science park location and new technology -based firms in sweden -implications for strategy and performance[ J ]. Small Business Economics, 2003:20,245 - 258.
7Jones - Evans D, Klofsten M. Universities and local economic development : the case of linkoping [ J ]. European Planning Studies, 1997, (5) : 77 -93.
8Marina Ranga. Science Cities: Prototypical or Atypical? [ R ]. UNECE Team of Specialists on Innovation and Competitiveness Policies(TOS - ICP) , Geneva, 14 - 15 February 2008. 5.
9Dirk Navest, Gerrit Zilch. Innovation Process in Small Software Developing Companies A Swedish Perspective [ R ]. Department of Management and Economics, Link? ping University, 2003,. 76-77.
10Martijn Enter. Identifying factors that contribute to high - growth knowledge - intensive ventures [ D ]. University of Twente, Nikos. March 2006. 86.
