Land is an essential natural resource, both for the survival and prosperity of humanity, and for the maintenance of all terrestrial ecosystems. Land is not regarded simply in terms of soils and surface topography, but encompasses such features as underlying superficial deposits, climate and water resources, and also the plant and animal communities which have developed as a result of the interaction of these physical conditions.

The production potential of arable land and its susceptibility to degradation are dependent on the management strategies employed and on inherent soil and other characteristics. In agriculture-dependent societies this combination of factors determines potentially the population that can be supported and the standard of living. When population increases in a given area, the increased demand on production can induce stress and consequent degradation of the land resource. If no other source of income can be tapped (e.g. by migration to urban areas) people's standards of living decrease. However, if improved management strategies (including technologies) are available, either the standard of living may rise or more people can be supported at the same standard of living without deterioration of the natural resource base. It follows that an ample supply of land of suitable quality and appropriate production technologies are essential if the increasing demands of a growing population are to be met.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/x3810e/x3810e04.htm

In my opinion probably not. In truth statistically greater surface may imply larger resources, but in this case there is no need to count per capita. But, of course, resources are not evenly.

In addition, the use of any resources depends on people, namely the enterprise and many other factors related to culture, access to technology, work ethic, political system, relations with neighbours, etc.

Compare the level of development of the country (GDP), in which we have a high or low population density of 1 square kilometer. However, this comparison clearly shows that the surface 1 inhabitant proves nothing. Of course, the most interesting, as always, are the extremes - the smallest and largest country, and the least and most populous. But in these cases are other factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org

wiki / List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density

I think you should rather concentrate on the ecological footprint and biocapacity, in other words not land per capita, but biologically useful land per capita. 

I do not believe land per capita per se can measure natural resource abundance of a country, because the value of the land will depend on the fertility of the soil, on its topography, on the climate, on the mineral deposits it holds, on the water availability, etc. Is the land a forest, an agricultural area, a desert? Is it under a cover of ice? What kind of natural resource are you interested in? Biodiversity? Minerals? Crops?

Dear Yue,

Your question seeking to know if land per capita measure natural resource abundance of a country is interesting and would require specific natural resource as focus point so as to avoid ambiguity. If given the universal definition of "land" then in actual sense, all physical development takes place on land irrespective of the type and nature whether on,above or beneath. In this case, land holding becomes crucial as one cannot give what one does not have. Land per capita can therefore measure individual holdings on land by country. Whereas the technological advancement of that country could determine the identification of what natural resource is available and its subsequent harnessing; the availability of such endowed natural resource potential cannot be disputed despite perceived present challenges which can be surmounted by future opportunities. Land holdings can therefore determine abundance of present and future natural resource base of a country as exploration and exploitation can make for present and future availability of natural resources in a country.